Why The Dreyfus Affair Matters By Louis Begely

[Strike For The South]

I got this book for Xmas and have finished it

In the book Begley tries to make the connection between The Dreyfus affair and post 9/11 America by juxtaposing the loss of law due to sensationalist nationalism/xenophobia

As an account of the Dreyfus affair I found the book top notch, a truly riveting account of the Dreyfus affair from the man himself to the entirety of France. Granted I am a bit of sucker for French History but any student should love the account. It is grand and sweeping yet not overly detailed or tedious.

Where the book falls flat on its face is the connections it tries to make with America. They are to few and when they are made they smack of a smugness that nearly chokes the readers interest right out of the book. This should come of course with some back story, Begley wrote and published the Book right after Obamas election and was riding the "hope and change" wave at its apex, so combine the smugness with a victors spoils attitude and you get what I'm talking about.

The sad part is I sympathize with the author’s position that Guantanamo is a black mark and that the Bush administration did skirt the law only to have the SCOUTS knock him back in his place but Begley frames it in such terms that make me want to punch him in the face.

So while the message (Republics can't skirt the rule of law in times of trial and tribulation) and the history (Dreyfus) are grade A. The non sequiter political message really takes away from the book

All in All I would say read it for the history and skip the nauseating political message :/ remember this is coming from someone who agrees wholeheartedly with the basic points

[Louis VI the Fat]

What's a Dreyfus?

[KrooK]

Louis - sorry but your question is a ... bit stupid. Especially that you perfectly know the matter.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I got this book for Xmas and have finished it

In the book Begley tries to make the connection between The Dreyfus affair and post 9/11 America by juxtaposing the loss of law due to sensationalist nationalism/xenophobia

As an account of the Dreyfus affair I found the book top notch, a truly riveting account of the Dreyfus affair from the man himself to the entirety of France. Granted I am a bit of sucker for French History but any student should love the account. It is grand and sweeping yet not overly detailed or tedious.

Where the book falls flat on its face is the connections it tries to make with America. They are to few and when they are made they smack of a smugness that nearly chokes the readers interest right out of the book. This should come of course with some back story, Begley wrote and published the Book right after Obamas election and was riding the "hope and change" wave at its apex, so combine the smugness with a victors spoils attitude and you get what I'm talking about.

The sad part is I sympathize with the author’s position that Guantanamo is a black mark and that the Bush administration did skirt the law only to have the SCOUTS knock him back in his place but Begley frames it in such terms that make me want to punch him in the face.

So while the message (Republics can't skirt the rule of law in times of trial and tribulation) and the history (Dreyfus) are grade A. The non sequiter political message really takes away from the book

All in All I would say read it for the history and skip the nauseating political message :/ remember this is coming from someone who agrees wholeheartedly with the basic points

You read the coolest books!

The Dreyfus affair brought to the fore the two camps that would be at each other's throat for the remaning half a century of the Third Republic. As such, the affair would be of interest even if there had never been a Dreyfus. The historical meaning of the affair trancends the actual happenings.


One would think that there are no longer anti-Dreyfussards. That no sane people would choose this camp. But I do still see similar pro and con camps, on many subjects. Even on the .org itself the Dreyfus affair was close to my mind twice, recently.

The first time, about the release of the report on Bloody Sunday. The conclusion was that the UK regiment comitted cold blooded murder on their own citizens.
One poster argued that because the same regiment is now stationed in Afghanistan, the report ought to have been repressed, because its release will lower morale and undermine the authority of the regiment.
How very Dreyfus to think along those lines. The truth made subordinate to 'honour', to the authority of the military.
If you ask me, that's a rather twisted sense of honour then. But then it is not up to me. Military honour is different from other honour. Closer to mobster, clan or ('Sicilian' / 'Islamic') family honour than to the civilian, liberal, honour. It is just not my world, not my morale.

The second time, in the Ossietzky thread. Where the same camps form again. One military-nationalist camp, not unlike the anti-Dreyfussard camp. Arguing for the incarceration of Germans who exposed the lies and cover-ups of the German state and the German military. One could hardly get closer to modern relevancy of Dreyfus than that one.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis - sorry but your question is a ... bit stupid.

There are no stupid questions.

[Brenus]

I would add other Dreyfus.
The Capitaine Alfred Dreyfus. From the Bourgeoisie, Jew, Officer in the French Army, Artillery.
A Jew could be an officer in the French Army. No need to convert, no need to change his name.
The High Cast Officers didn’t accept this new political line easily. Jews were not allowed to be in the Army before the Revolution (this horrible event) and they should know their places…
He was chosen to be the easy scapegoat by these Officers so engulfed in their prejudices they taught they could get away with it.
After all, it works in all others European Countries and to be Jew was a common insult in the French Parliament. But it didn’t work.

So when half a nation rose in the defence of a JEW, they couldn’t understand. What a lot of noise for just a Jew… Civil unrest, families splinted, demonstrations and all nasty things for a Jew…
And then, the French learnt that if you are not defending one individual, even if he is from the Bourgeoisie, even if he is an Officer, even if he is a Jew, you are the next on the list.
Either Dreyfus was guilty and shot by firing squad as a traitor and German Spy; either he is not and shouldn’t be in jail…
They wanted a proper investigation and Court, and sentence.


The surprise is not that anti-Semitism existed in France but is the fact that half a Nation took the defence of a Jew.

[Skullheadhq]

They should have executed the traitor spy.

[Brenus]

He was not guilty... Ooops

[Beskar]

There are no stupid questions.

Only stupid people.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would add other Dreyfus.

[...]

The surprise is not that anti-Semitism existed in France but is the fact that half a Nation took the defence of a Jew.

To me, Dreyfus was the deciding moment for the 20th century French history. Right at the start, in 1899, it was decided that France would not succumb to fascism, that France would not have pogroms or a Holocaust, that France would be the bastion of human dignity in Europe's cursed 20th century, that France would be the only European country to end the century with more Jewish citizens than it began with.

The fight had been had already. When it was fought in Spain in the 1930s, it was too late. When it was fought in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, the democratic forces were disorganised and weak. In France the Republican alliance had been forged, had shown it was the ultimate force, and it held, even during the darkest days in the 1930s. The Third Republic was much more resilient than its perennial infighting would suggest.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Only stupid people.

If there are no stupid questions, then do stupid people suddenly become smart when they ask a question?

[Fisherking]

Careful, you didn’t say anything about stupid answers.

Oh, and what ever happened to the Major who let Dreyfus take the fall for what he had done?

Why was it covered up and Dreyfus left to rot?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, and what ever happened to the Major who let Dreyfus take the fall for what he had done?

He fled to Britain, where he lived happily ever after, well until after WWI, dividing his time between spying for Germany and writing antisemitic tirades.

Why was it covered up and Dreyfus left to rot?

For me, the short answer is because of a twisted sense of honour and the disingeneous intellectual dishonesty of that alliance of antisemites, military, nationalists, clergy. Pretty much the four horsemen of the 1914-1945 Apocalypse.

[Strike For The South]

[KrooK]

There are no stupid questions.

Sorry Louis but I disagree. Have you ever been to court :)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry Louis but I disagree. Have you ever been to court :)

Yes, as a matter of fact I have.

They said it was me they even showed some grainy footage of the hooded burglars bUt I SWEAR I DIDN'T DO IT WE ONLY WANTED TO CHECK THE PLACE OUT NOT STEAL ANYTHING AND THE FIRE WAS AN ACCIDENT PLEASE GOD JUDGES YOU MUST LISTEN TO ME