Why is the Dreyfus Affair such a milestone in French political history?

Part I. Keyword Identifications (30%)
Choose five (5) of the following key terms and explain their significance to the history of
twentieth-century Europe.
1. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
2. Fidel Castro
3. Margaret Thatcher
4. The Holocaust
5. The Spanish Civil War
6. Communism
7. Mensheviks
8. Colonialism
9. Léon Blum
10. The SPD
11. The Berlin Wall
12. Paul von Hindenburg
13. Nikita Khrushchev
14. The Prague Spring
Part II. Primary Source Identifications (30%)
Choose two (2) of the following excerpts from our primary source readings, identify the
works from which they are drawn, and in one or two pages explain what the passage tells
us about the past.
1. “Gentlemen, what was the key accomplishment, the major concern, the great passion
and service of the French Revolution? To have built this secular state, to have succeeded
in making the social organisms of society exclusively secular, to have taken away from the
clergy its political organization and role as a cadre within the state – that, precisely, is the
French Revolution in its full reality. Well now, we do not presume to convert the honorable
members seated on this side of the Chamber [i.e., on the right] to the doctrines of the
revolution. We only wish to be well understood that we do not deviate from these doctrines.
Convinced that the first concern, the first duty of a democratic government is to maintain
incessant, powerful, vigilant and efficient control over public education, we insist that this
control belong to no authority other than the State. We cannot admit, we will never admit,
and this country of France will never admit that the State can be anything but a secular one.
(‘Very good! Very good!’ from the left and center left.).”
2. “At present, we are concerned with how the cult of Stalin has been gradually growing,
the cult which became the source of a whole series of exceedingly serious perversions of
party principles, of party democracy, of revolutionary legality. The central committee
considers it absolutely necessary to make material pertaining to this matter available to the
20th congress.
The great modesty of the genius of the revolution, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, is known. Lenin
always stressed the role of the people as the creator of history. Lenin mercilessly
stigmatised every manifestation of the cult of the individual. Lenin never imposed his
views by force. He tried to convince. He patiently explained his opinions to others.
Lenin detected in Stalin those negative characteristics which resulted later in grave
consequences. Fearing the future fate of the of the Soviet nation, Lenin pointed out that it
was necessary to consider transferring Stalin from the position of general secretary
because Stalin did not have a proper attitude toward his comrades.
In 1922 Vladimir Ilyich wrote: ‘After taking over the position of general secretary,
comrade Stalin accumulated immeasurable power in his hands and I am not certain whether
he will be always able to use this power with the required care.’
Vladimir Ilyich said: ‘I propose that the comrades consider the method by which Stalin
would be removed from this position and by which another man would be selected for it, a
man who, above all, would differ from Stalin in only one quality, namely, greater tolerance,
greater loyalty, greater kindness.’
Comrades! The party congress should become acquainted with new documents, which
confirm Stalin’s character. In March 1923, Lenin sent Stalin the following letter: ‘Dear
comrade Stalin! You permitted yourself a rude summons of my wife to the telephone and
a rude reprimand of her. Despite the fact that she told you that she agreed to forget what
was said, I have no intention to forget so easily.’ Comrades! I will not comment on these
documents. They speak eloquently for themselves.
As later events have proven, Lenin’s anxiety was justified. Stalin, who absolutely did not
tolerate collegiality in leadership and in work, acted not through persuasion, but by
imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Stalin originated
the concept ‘enemy of the people.’ This term automatically made it unnecessary that the
ideological errors of a man be proven. It made possible the use of the cruellest repression,
against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only
suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations.”
3. “Now I come to the point, which was mentioned to me just now from some quarters of
the House, about the saving of peace. No one has been a more resolute and
uncompromising struggler for peace than the Prime Minister. Everyone knows that. Never
has there been such intense and undaunted determination to maintain and to secure peace.
That is quite true. Nevertheless, I am not quite clear why there was so much danger of
Great Britain or France being involved in a war with Germany at this juncture if, in fact,
they were ready all along to sacrifice Czechoslovakia. The terms which the Prime Minister
brought back with him – I quite agree at the last moment; everything had got off the rails
and nothing but his intervention could have saved the peace, but I am talking of the events
of the summer – could easily have been agreed, I believe, through the ordinary diplomatic
channels at any time during the summer. And I will say this, that I believe the Czechs, left
to themselves and told they were going to get no help from the Western Powers, would
have been able to make better terms than they have got – they could hardly have worse –
after all this tremendous perturbation.”
4. “For an unemployed man the day lasts 13½ hours, for a worker, 17 hours. The few leisure
hours the employed worker enjoys after his eight-hour shift are carefully disposed of and
incomparably richer and more active than the many hours forced upon the man out of work.
Waking the children certainly does not take up a whole hour. Treer’s shop (where he spends
3:00–4:00 P.M.) is only three minutes from where this man lives, and the distance from the
park to his home which he covers in the hour between 5:00–6:00 P.M. is about 300 yards.
What happens in the intervals?… It is always the same: when he fills out his time sheet, the
unemployed worker can recall only a few ‘events.’ Between the three reference points of
getting up, eating, and going to bed lie intervals of inactivity hard to describe for an
observer and apparently also difficult to describe for the man himself.”
5. “We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among
the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries
shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only tradeunion consciousness, i.e. the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the
employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.
The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic
theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals.
By their social status, the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels,
themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the
theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the
spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable
outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia…”
6. “A word as to missions in Africa. Beyond doubt I think the most useful missions are the
medical and the industrial, in the initial stages of savage development. A combination of
the two is, in my opinion, an ideal mission. Such is the work of the Scotch Free Church on
Lake Nyasa. The medical missionary begins work with every advantage. Throughout
Africa the ideas of the cure of the body and of the soul are closely allied. The ‘medicine
man’ is credited, not only with a knowledge of the simples and drugs which may avert or
cure disease, but owing to the superstitions of the people, he is also supposed to have a
knowledge of the charms and dawa which will invoke the aid of the Deity or appease His
wrath, and of the witchcraft and magic (ulu) by which success in war, immunity from
danger, or a supply of rain may be obtained. As the skill of the European in medicine asserts
its superiority over the crude methods of the medicine man, so does he in proportion gain
an influence in his teaching of the great truths of Christianity. He teaches the savage where
knowledge and art cease, how far natural remedies produce their effects, independent of
charms or supernatural agencies, and where divine power overrules all human efforts. Such
demonstration from a medicine man, whose skill they cannot fail to recognize as superior
to their own, has naturally more weight than any mere preaching. A mere preacher is
discounted and his zeal is not understood. The medical missionary, moreover, gains an
admission to the houses and homes of the natives by virtue of his art, which would not be
so readily accorded to another. He becomes their adviser and referee, and his counsels are
substituted for the magic and witchcraft which retard development.”
7. “For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an
essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are
rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation
is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the
tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again
after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline,
the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains
many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the
State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would
oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and
would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century – repudiated
wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and
political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of
direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand
signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine
must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and
that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have
suffered and died for it.”
Part III. Essay Question (40%)
Choose one (1) of the following questions/statements and answer with an essay.
Remember to articulate a clear argument, based on your knowledge of the texts read for
class.
1. What is fascism? Are fascism and Nazism one and the same thing? If not, how do they
differ from each other?
2. What were the causes of the First World War?
3. The Cold War was a misnomer. Discuss.
4. Why is the Dreyfus Affair such a milestone in French political history?
5. What was the Warsaw Pact?
6. Stalin was intent on world domination. Please comment critically.
7. Some historians believe that the First and the Second World Wars should be understood
as one single conflict (this theory is known as the “Thirty Years’ War thesis”). Do you
agree with that view?

Last Completed Projects