How did Mussolini become Prime Minister in 1922?

Contrary to popular belief, Benito Mussolini ascended to power legally, according to the Italian Constitution; appointed directly by King Victor Emmanuel III. No revolution took place.

The Italian government at this time was very weak. The ruling Liberals had gained a reputation of being corrupt and uninspired to challenge Italy’s social and political problems, tending to simply rig and buy off elections as a solution to the political turmoil. They had ruled before the war and had suffered a split over the war intervention issue from which they never recovered.

Italy emerged from the war with soaring inflation, a huge debt and unemployment spurred on by the demobilization of the army. To stave off uprisings among the poor, the government subsidized almost everything from bread to clothes. Its expenditure was far greater than its revenue, yet the Liberal State refused to tax the wealthy, severely angering working-classes. The party stood divided and no group ever again gained a complete majority in the House of Deputies, leading to many consecutive coalition agreements. This allowed their opponents to gain greater support from the people, such as the Socialists and Communists who’s support base was made up from many of the working-classes who were impressed by the Bolshevik ‘worker’s revolution’ in Russia, which soon inspired revolution in Italy.

After being thrown out by the Italian Socialist Party for publishing his support for war intervention in the Socialist newspaper Avanti, Mussolini made a radical change and soon denounced socialism for failing to recognize that the war had showed national identity and patriotism as being of more importance than social-class, proclaiming: “Socialism as a doctrine was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge”.

In retaliation, he formed the newspaper Fasci Rivoluzionari d’Azione Internazionalista, the ‘Revolutionary Fasci for International Action’. His support of Italian intervention gave him financial support from various armament manufacturers such as Ansaldo, to create another newspaper, Il Popolo d’Italia to convince socialists to support the war.

Mussolini soon founded a movement called Fasci di Combattimento. The first meeting was attended by proud war veterans, nationalists and disillusioned socialists. He made allies from those veterans who called themselves the Arditi (the brave). The Arditi were organized for violence against the ‘traitors’ who spoke out against the war, expressing this through street fighting and their passion for wearing an insignia uniform, soon becoming known as: the ‘Blackshirts’. They complained that at the Paris Peace Conference, Italy was being cheated out of its just reward for participation in World War I. Soon developing a loathing for the incapable Liberal government, Mussolini said that Italy had a right to its place in the world and held a desire for the re-emergence of a new Roman Empire and made clear his opposition to the Monarchy and the Catholic Church.

Mussolini’s main enemy was the Socialist Party and in 1919, Mussolini’s movement attacked the Avanti newspaper building, attempting to persuade workers to align with his cause but failed to attract them away from their socialist-led unions.

The later Milanese elections led to further disappointment as Mussolini and his Fascists won nothing. His supporters resorted to acts of terrorism, sending explosives through the mail to Socialist supporters and incited non-partisan gangs to throw bombs at groups of Socialists celebrating their victory. Many of them were tried and found guilty, but were were omitted due to their actions being described as personal ‘patriotic motives’.

A former World War I pilot, Gabriele D’Annunzio led an army of 2,000 veterans into the small city of Fiume on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea and seized power. Fiume had a large Italian population, and many Italians wanted the province to be a part of their nation. However the leaders of the newly formed Yugoslavia bitterly resented this, financing an underground resistance movement. Mussolini praised D’Annunzio, describing him as the only man who had “dared to revolt against the plutocracy that had created the Versailles Treaty” and eagerly adopted his personality and style of patriotic balcony speeches and hosting parades and publicity events.

In 1919-20 during a period known as ‘Red Week’, workers in Italy’s top industries went on strike. Workers and trade unions locked themselves inside their factories and the homes of land-owners were ransacked. The upper-classes became terrified of the threat of revolution and the loss of their property.

Mussolini saw this as an opportunity to exploit the fear of the upper-classes and the Fascists formed organised armed squads of Blackshirts led by Mussolini’s closest friend Dino Grandi, with the intention of restoring order to the streets of Italy. They quickly took advantage of the situation, violently breaking up strikes and attacking trade union leaders. The Blackshirts clashed with communists, socialists, and anarchists who all regally fought with each other, instead of coming together to coercively oppose this new threat. They were so effective against the Socialist threat that they soon began to gain significant support and his armed Fascists soon took on the role of heroes of social order as they began running the essential services that were abandoned by the strikers. The Fascists having won the praise of Italy’s middle-classes, were applauded by former Liberal supporters, viewing the violence not as a threat to them, but as a defence against the threat of a left-wing revolution. Mussolini initially avoided Fascist violence but then began to use it as a weapon, gaining support from property owners. The government rarely intervened with the Blackshirts’ actions, due to the looming threat of a ‘red revolution’ and as they foresaw them as becoming a significant political force and assumed they may be forced to strike a deal with them if a coalition occurred and so had no wish to anger them in anticipation of the future.

The Fascisti gained much approval for their actions and grew so rapidly that within two years Mussolini founded another movement, ‘The Fighting Fascists’ who won the favour of the nation’s youth. The electors in 1921 sent him to Parliament along with thirty-five other Fascist Deputies, giving birth to the National Fascist Party – boasting more than 250 thousand followers and Mussolini as its uncontested leader. They now enjoyed the support of vital groups: the large industries, farmers, military, and the Church who were delighted with Mussolini’s solution to their problems: organize the youth to forcibly control the workers and set up a tough government to restore ‘law and order’. It was the complete opposite of his early views as a socialist.

An important reason for Fascism’s early support, was the fact that it opposed social-class discrimination. Instead, supporting nationalist sentiments such as strong unity, regardless of race or class, in the hope of raising Italy up to the levels of its great Roman past.. Mussolini promoted an ideology of protecting class unity, rejection of equality, mass militarization of the nation and imperialism of the world.

Although they gained but a minority in the House of Deputies, many property owners strongly felt that the Fascists should be in government, and urged Liberal leaders to make this possible. The support gained from groups such as the police who sympathised with the Fascists – thankful for their assistance with suppressing the regular strikers, played an important role in the Fascist takeover. Mussolini soon realised however, that an attempt at using violence to achieve a military coup and overthrow the Monarchy would be stopped by the army, destroying his reputation among the upper-classes and would never succeed in bringing him to power.

Mussolini attempted to please both his violent Fascists and the traditionalist higher-classes, by expressing both revolutionary and conservative attitudes simultaneously; often described as the ‘The Third Way’ because it was vastly different to anything else in the political climate during that era.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Prime Minister Giolitti had done much to alienate his political base. His government was in need of additional strength so he invited the Fascists to join him in a coalition. Mussolini soon saw an opportunity for entering national politics and securing power by legal means. He immediately joined the coalition, which in turn planted seeds of dissent among his violent supporters who still held hopes for a revolutionary coup to gain power. Although Mussolini’s party had won the lowest amount of seats in the House of Deputies, their paramilitary Blackshirts still controlled the streets, violently punishing those who expressed Socialist attitudes, much to the delight of the business owners.

In response to the squadrista’s increasing violent behaviour towards non-Fascists, Mussolini soon feared the formation of a counteractive coalition among his opponents that would leave him politically isolated – as many anti-Fascist Deputies favored. To stave off such a threat, Mussolini ordered his squadrista leaders; the Ra’s, to briefly hold back their violence. Now that he was into genuine politics, he was seeking more credibility to attract potential allies from the conservative upper-classes.

The opposition parties however, were generally unresponsive. They boycotted Parliament in the ‘Aventine Secession’, hoping to force the King to dismiss Mussolini whilst creating a new Parliament as they saw Mussolini’s actions as unconstitutional. The king – as ever, fearful of violence from the Fascist squadristi, refused to dismiss him.

In contrast to this weakness of the ruling government, Mussolini was a figure of strength. He spoke of recreating Italian power by reviving the economy and restoring law and order. He also declared his support for the Monarchy, with the admiration and approval of Italy’s Queen Mother, Margarita. And because of the boycott of Parliament, Mussolini could pass any legislation unopposed which he began with the ‘Acerbo Act’, granting a two-thirds majority of seats in the party which obtained at least 25% of the vote and his law was utilized in the elections of 1924, where his ‘National Alliance’ of Fascists, and old absorbed Liberals won 64% of the vote.

But these successive victories soon proved too little, as within his own party, Mussolini faced severe dissension. His squadristi Ra’s met with Mussolini and gave him a final demand – ”Crush the opposition and march on Rome, or we will seek another to lead us towards genuine revolution”. Fearing a revolt from inside his own party, Mussolini decided to drop all pretence of his democratic ideals.

The possibility of such a march soon became public knowledge, although the current government led by Facta however, appeared unwilling to defend against a Fascist coup or to limit the violence that was still occurring on the streets. The Left saw itself as the only force that could stop them, but were heavily divided. In a final attempt at a show of force, the Socialist Party declared a general strike in late 1924. Very few people participated however and the strike gave Mussolini an opportunity to demonstrate how the Fascists were willing to provide voluntary services to the nation, once again posing as the saviours of the country, increasing national and patriotic pride, appealing to the middle-classes who simply wanted an uninterrupted daily life.

Once he saw that his opponents had put up such meagre resistance, Mussolini unleashed his threat in early 1925, where he made a final challenge before the Chamber to his opponents; backed up by the looming squadrista militants lurking outside the Parliament building, where – after receiving no challenger, he promised to ”march into Rome and save the Fatherland from the Anarchists”. This threat made Facta so uneasy that he doubled the city garrison in the face of the Fascist threat. Facta later pleaded with the King, Victor Emmanuel III, who was the head of the armed forces, to establish martial law. However, the King – being unsure of the loyalty of his army to the Monarchy because of the recent conflict in Albania where half the entire army completely disobeyed their orders from their commander-in-chief, he had u-turned on his original decision and refused to sign the order; in his mind, potentially averting a civil war. Facta then resigned as Prime Minister and the king was forced to find a replacement.

Victor Emmanuel III eventually offered Giolitti’s opponent, Salandra, the position of Prime Minister, who in turn, offered the Fascists four cabinet places, but Mussolini – spurred on by his foresight of close victory and the threats from his squadrista commanders, declined. Mussolini was invited by the King to become the Prime Minister, who eagerly accepted.

The Fascist revolutionaries were beginning to arrive from their ‘March on Rome’ and Mussolini turned what had been a threat to seize power, into a victory parade, pleasing both groups of his political base. To quickly consolidate his position, Mussolini received dictator-like powers from the legislature for one single year; legal under the Italian constitution of the time. He forced through the complete restoration of state authority, with the integration of the Blackshirts into the armed forces and the identification of ultra-nationalism within the state.

However, the assassination of the Socialist Deputy Giacomo Matteotti – murdered after he openly denounced Fascist violence during the elections, sparked a crisis and reversed Mussolini’s early fortunes. The murderer, a Blackshirt named Dumini, reported to Mussolini soon after the murder, who instantly ordered a cover-up, although several prominent witnesses managed to discreetly reveal the incident and the crisis provoked cries for justice against the murder of an outspoken critic of Fascist violence. The outcry soon wore off, for there was no mass demonstration against the murder of Matteotti. And with his death, soon followed the end of any organised opposition.

As the 1930s began, Mussolini was seated safely in power and enjoyed wide support. The wealthiest groups who had backed him now profited from the system of corporatism. As Prime Minister however, Mussolini offered few solutions to Italy’s problems, declaring many controversial issues such as the lack of successful harvests as solved, simply by stating so. He suspended civil liberties, silenced all opposition, and imposed dictatorship upon his people. However in 1931, a historic meeting with the Vatican saw him settle the age-old differences between the Italian state and the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Pius XI proclaimed that Mussolini had been sent ”by Divine Providence”, which helped to him to assume further totalitarian powers under the guise of the old ‘Divine Right of Kings’ ruling authority.

Max Weber, Bureacracy, and the Rise of Prussia

Max Weber was largely unknown during his lifetime, but his fame has grown ever since because he originated some key ideas with which to understand the workings of Capitalism.

Born in Erfurt in Germany in 1864, Weber grew up to see his country altered by the dramatic changes ushered in by the Industrial Revolution. Cities were booming, vast companies were forming and a new managerial elite was replacing the planter aristocracy.

Weber was a German philosopher and his work is known for being a major influence on modern sociology, particularity in the field of organizational theory. But more importantly, he concerned himself with how to understand complex historical institutions. He was obsessed by power; where it originates and how it can be made into a legitimate force of coercion.

Legitimate power

Weber proposed three areas for claiming legitimacy:

The first; traditional authority, which was prevalent in pre-modern societies, is based on respect for tradition; superstition, religion and ceremony. Power was obtained and secured through inheritance.

This type of power is regarded as legitimate because in societies where it existed, it had always been obeyed and so there was no reason to challenge it, especially when there was no serious alternative. It is not codified in specific rules but puts power in the the hands of particular people who may either inherit it or be invested with it by a higher authority; the divine right of kings for example.

The second, was that authority may be based on rational grounds and anchored in rules that have been established by contract, favoured by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. This is known as rational-legal authority, the most common type used in legal systems in modern society, based upon distinctive written rules that no single person is an exception from.

And charismatic authority, which rests on the appeal of leaders which springs from their ‘exception personality’ or ‘abilities’. They may be religious leaders, warriors, or seemingly ordinary individuals with great talent or instinct. In this type, power comes directly from the personal charisma of the individual leader.

Charismatic leaders want to be seen as a revolutionary force, and often arise from revolution, however, upon their death this usually evolves into traditional authority as new leadership seeks to maintain the rule of the former leader, e.g. Stalin after Lenin, Muhammad’s descendants, and Alexander the Great’s three heirs. This power soon becomes unstable as is it no longer seen as legitimate by all the followers of the former leader.

This type of power tends to be incompatible with rational authority because having generally formed through a revolt against rules and law, under charismatic authority the only rule is through sheer force of personality, and is subject only to the leader. The leader makes laws, but is not subject to them. Mussolini is an excellent example, who’s fascist doctrine was extremely incoherent, designed to accommodate polar opposite supporters.

Bureaucracy

Weber argues that modern states need to mobilise and centralise resources of legitimate political power in order to govern. It’s not as easy in the modern age to govern through force alone; in order to rule effectively, governments need bureaucracy.

Bureau is French for desk, and cracy is Greek for power or rule; so the word is roughly ‘rule from the desk’.

Historically, imperial nations in the early 19th century needed to centralise power in order to control their rapidly expanding territories, such as the United States, Russia and Italy. But Weber’s views were most influenced by the upstart Prussian empire and the bureaucracy that it formed. Weber witnessed how an efficient and organised bureaucracy led to a few weak fragmented states; becoming briefly the most powerful nation in Europe.

Originally, bureaucracy developed as a reaction against the subjugation of early administrative systems, where many countries were governed by dictatorships or monarchies which imposed their will on others. And because birth-rite was the sole determinate of who could next occupy these positions, important factors such as education, skills and experience were ignored. The spoils system in post-Civil War America is an example of this, whereby each new President would bring in his own people to administer the law. Naturally, they were all part of the same party, owing their posts solely to political ties. This system resulted in massive corruption, fraud and embezzlement.

It is because of this, Max Weber created the concept of bureaucratic management. The foundation ideal is based on rational-legal authority, which states that rules and other controls are more effective than managing based upon subjective criteria such as favouritism or nepotism.

Weber points out five characteristics that in a true perfect state, these attributes would allow to bureaucracy to function as a well-oiled machine.

The division of labour assigns workers to specific specialised tasks – while all would work together for bureaucracy to functions properly, each worker would have their own job to do. This shows who is responsible for and ultimately, who has authority in each section of the bureaucracy.

Rules and regulations guide the actions of workers and ensure tasks are performed uniformly and optimally. These rules were to be codified to ensure that they could not be misinterpreted.

A managerial hierarchy with a clear chain of command that trickles down to the lowest levels. From those who make and change decisions to those who implement them. There is a clear separation of spheres of responsibility where the power is distributed. Bureaucrats/public officials will have specialised training in certain areas in order to hold certain positions, but no single sphere will have too much power.

Training and qualifications and other formal selections are an essential component of a smooth functioning bureaucracy – meritocracy, not aristocracy. Employees should be hired and promoted based upon merit.

And impersonality or blind justice. Acting impersonally avoids the consideration of personal preferences when deciding how to administer certain rules. Rules should be administered without fear or favour.

Bureaucracies are organized according to rational principles. This bureaucratic coordination of the actions of large numbers of people has become the dominant structural feature of modern forms of organization. Weber considered this as the most efficient method of organization. However, he concluded that bureaucracy also contains several disadvantages.

Cons

Modern bureaucratized systems of law implement laws according to general principles, regardless of unique events or individuals, and in these scenarios, no negotiation is possible. The “modern judge,” Weber stated, “is a vending machine into which the pleadings are inserted together with the fee and which then disgorges the judgement together with the reasons mechanically derived from the Code.”

Bureaucracies can easily evolve into oligarchy, the very system it is supposed to protect against.

Due to the division of labour in a bureaucracy, no one can be ultimately held responsible for the end result of many decisions taken by multiple people. And even if the administrators knew what they where doing, would they still enforce the law even if it is a bad law? If abhorrent regime took power, they would have the infrastructure to implement their will on the masses, because the administrators are just following their orders to the letter, basic moral questions are not asked. So the great advantage of the bureaucratic state, in that the law is applied fairly and effectively, is also its gravest weakness. Laws that oppress the population can still be carried out fairly and effectively, irrelevant of its immoral nature.

Despite detailing strong cases for and against bureaucratic management, Weber argued that this has led to the world’s depersonalization, and further bureaucratization seemed to Weber inevitable.

Similarity with Marx

Weber’s views have similarities to Marx’s theory of alienation. Both men agree that modern means of organization have increased the efficiency of production and organization and have allowed domination of man over the world of nature. But Weber disagrees with Marx who sees alienation as only a transitional stage on the road to man’s true freedom. Even though he hoped that some charismatic leader might arise to deliver mankind to salvation, he thought it more likely that the future would be an “iron cage” rather than a Garden of Eden.

On economics, Marx had documented how the capitalist industrial organization led to exploitation of the worker and removed him from his means of production; how the industrial worker, in contrast to the artisan, did not own his own tools and so was forced to sell his labour to those who controlled him. Agreeing with most of this analysis, Weber countered that this was an inescapable result of any system of centrally planned production, rather than being a consequence of capitalism, and this would characterize a socialist system of production just as much as it would the capitalist form.

Weber also argued that this was only a single case of a general phenomenon in modern society where scientists are expropriated from the means of research, administrators from the means of administration, and soldiers from the means of violence. In all areas of modern society, men could no longer engage in significant actions unless they joined a large-scale organization, in which they were allocated specific tasks and they sacrificed their personal desires to the impersonal goals that governed the whole body, for the greater good.

Fin

Only through the use of bureaucratic management has large-scale planning for the modern state and the modern economy, become possible. Only through it could political leaders mobilize resources, which in feudal times, for example, had been widely decentralised and dispersed. Bureaucratic organization is to Weber the instrument that has shaped modern politics, the modern economy, and modern technology.

WINOL Critical Assessment

Winchester News Online (WINOL) is a multimedia news website, produced by Winchester University’s journalism students, with news covered from the university campus to as far afield as the New Forrest and the Isle of Wight, in Hampshire.

In my view, Winchester News Online has published some excellent student journalism in this semester. Although I had not regularly visited the site prior to working on it, in discussions with other students, especially third years, and hearing from guest editors, the work, performance and content standards were set at a higher level from previous years, as I assume is the case every in every new semester. Although the consistency of work produced has varied from week to week rather than constantly improving, this must be because the second years are still settling into their roles on the team. I believe this because the consistently of the third year students is undoubted in their work produced and their time spent on mentoring the newcomers and their work on other projects outside of WINOL.

I conclude – as I have seen through my own performance, that the trend has and will continue improve with time and practice; both as individual reporters or other contributing roles, and as a team-producing content news site.

On the aesthetics of the site itself, the presentation of the content is good, with much content on each page with little left bare. A clear and simple layout and site map allows for easy navigation whether as a new user or as a frequent visitor. The amount of published content – text, picture and video has, according the people I previously mentioned, greatly improved. There are sections for news, sport, education, politics, business, features and more.

The content of the news produced is great. The news stories are standard local pieces, and almost all have interviews and some excellent and imaginative shots such as in the ‘Benefits street’ story which combines several good interviewees with great sound-bites and adventuring to the street of the story. One thing which has been mentioned by staff and students alike is that some interviews are with those likely to be students on pieces which are not particularly about them. I can see this as either a lack of access to better interviewees or laziness. I can understand the mindset for interviews with a young audience, however this comes down to where WINOL decides to expand and focus its target audience upon, Winchester and university-centered, or across Hampshire. The introducing of more and improved graphics has added to the aura of professionalism we have.

There are increasing interviews with senior political figures such as in Nick Clegg’s surprise visit to Eastleigh and Sajid Javid’s campaigning which were both unannounced events, and the Southampton house explosion which all happened on days where WINOL went out. This shows that we have the capability to find and report the news in real-time, as well as the fact that our methods for doing so are on the right track and I can only hope that with the departure of the third years next semester that this performance will continue and even improve if possible.

Each story is mostly local, with the occasional venturing off to a far side of Hampshire which I believe will become more regular in the future, depending on the big issue of our perceived audience. In previous years it was the university campus, and Winchester with the odd trip to Southampton or Eastleigh, but as WINOL grows we need to firmly decide who we are appealing to and whether we need to produce more stories from around the entirely of Hampshire – which was of particular interest to me, since my beat is politics in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, or focus on the immediate area of Winchester and its surrounding cities. Practically all guest editors have highlighted this issue that we do not know who we should be targeting, and we need to firmly establish this in order to tap into that additional audience.

Although the quantity and the quality is of high merit, I believe one other problem and something that could be improved in the following WINOL is the frequency of publication. In online journalism we have to post good, legal and entertaining pieces, but also to do it often enough that we keep our following from thinking we are a site that updates only once a week.

WINOL’s traffic figures improved greatly by more than 6000 places to 32,323 by the end of the semester – according to Alexa rankings, where previously we were at number 38,579 in the UK at the beginning in early October. Despite this performance, WINOL is still below our rivals in student journalism.

We also made improvements as we further expanded our social media presence online, creating an Instagram and Pinterest account. The position of social media editor was officially created, with Lynn doing and excellent job constantly updating Twitter and Facebook, and aggressively requiring reporters in the field to take pictures whilst at work. Notably, we reached our goal from last year to 2000 Twitter followers by running a competition to our audience.

To increase our viewing figures, we need to use social media to an even greater extent, to advertise the bulletin in particular. However, with no defined target audience I believe this is negatively affecting our means to promote ourselves. If we decide to focus more on students, perhaps another means for promotion would be to screen the bulletin around the campus, and I am somewhat surprised that this hasn’t been done.

The additions to news – sport and features, have gone in a great direction with larger and more experienced teams than past years. ‘Tough Mudder’ was the stand-alone piece with good shots from all different angles, and access to a world event in Winchester. Sportsweek returning and Goal of the Month brought in huge views too. Features launched W2 and focussed this year on video content with some exceptional results such as the fashion shoot in week one. The first two hour feature production was pulled off with no major faults and should set a precedent for further feature bulletins. People are coming for bulletin but stay for the sport, and increasingly the features, so this is why must endeavour to promote the bulletin above all else as much as possible.

My role in news was as political reporter for Hampshire. I aimed to produce packages on national news stories but bringing them back with a local angle. With a larger team it was naturally much more difficult to get into the headlines although every week where I produced something it did make the bulletin. Although I only produced four packages that were eventually broadcast – due to reasons ranging from cancelling interviewees, to filming, weather and editing problems, I did attempt to find something each for every week. It took me several weeks to really find my place and work out how I would produce my stories, but after this time I slowly improved, week on week.

A slight issue I found with my position was that I struggled to balance between stories throughout Hampshire such as in the New Forrest but also local areas such as Southampton, Eastleigh, and Winchester although they are in theory covered by other reporters. My solution to this was simply to offer the story to someone on that beat, for example, the empty homes story I gave to Winchester’s political reporter Lauren Clarke. So throughout the semester I attempted to balance between local stories which have an audience closer to us with more relevant stories, alongside reporting on major issues affecting the whole (in the case of firefighter strikes) or other parts such as the Isle of Wight. In the future I will aim to work on the latter two, leaving local stories to reporters to which they are assigned.

On my beat, I experience common problems and I believe that it is simply the experience of being a reporting and working in the field that has allowed me to improve. I produced stories on empty homes increasing in Winchester, firefighters on strike, police job cuts and the Isle of Wight link. I was most disappointed with the firefighter story, as I had acquired a great interview with Dave Green, the national spokesman for the Fire Brigades Union. Upon coming back to the studio I discovered the audio didn’t record.

Although the quality of my shots has improved, my sound has not and a constant problem has been my pieces to camera, although on occasion this has been because I there was a lack of radio microphones to loan out. Towards the end of the semester, I really discovered the importance of maintaining a relationship with my contacts. A local campaigner and former councillor I interviewed in my first story on empty homes has been of great help to me, on occasion emailing me interesting stories and even managed to supply me with direct contact numbers to Police Federation officials which helped me get in touch with John Apter.

My strongest report came in the final week. I was especially please to get an interview with Derek Needham, who owns one of the largest businesses on the Isle of Wight. He gave me some great sound grabs and is very influential on the Island so I am trying to keep up my good relationship with him as he can put me in touch almost anyone who does business on the Isle of Wight. The shots and angle of the interview where excellent, with him at the side but having the other side of the shot filled. This package also had great wild sound which was natural and directly a part of the story. Both are things which Graham Bell picked up on, though I was slightly disappointed that I didn’t receive more feedback for this. Despite that, I was very pleased with this package; I had travelled far and had to get hard-won filming permission on the ferry deck.

My story coincided with the Isle of Wight’s County Press’ report on the same story, and I managed to get permission to use their artist’s impression image of the planned bridge. I found from this that having contacts not only in the real world which we report on, but those journalists who work alongside us are of vital help and next semester I will attempt to build on my contacts in local papers. Overall I think that every package I have produce has had lots of small issues ranging from muffled sound to poor interview positions, but that each week I have slowly improved upon each issue and that my trend is positive

When it comes to editing my packages, it probably takes longer than others, but I think this is likely because I have rarely experimented with video editing software before and practice should quicken this. Despite my time, I am having no problems with editing my footage, provided I successfully get it all – video and audio, before I come to edit.

A final point I would say for my contacts is that they are also of great help when it comes to package promotion. My contact in the Fire Brigades Union uploading my firefighter strike story to his personal and work Twitter pages which saw my Youtube video count soar. However it is impossible to know how many of these viewers followed on to WINOLs website, so something to work on would be to give direct promotion in that way too, all adding towards the main goal of an increased audience.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was a recluse who devoted his life to answering the single question, “What can we know?”

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 near Königsberg, present day Russia, and never travelled further than 10 miles from his hometown. Soon to be one of the most influential philosophers in terms of of morality and political thinking, by attempting to rebuild philosophy from the ground up, Kant transcended both philosophies of his time, Rationalism and Empiricism, changing forever modern perspectives on questions of philosophy. Kant was born near the shore of the Baltic Sea, close to the important port city Kalingrad, a mix with many English, Dutch, Polish, and Russian traders.

The main influence of his life was his mother; a pious, austere, yet loving woman, whose moral character shaped that of her son and played a prominent role in his future philosophy. Kant grew up in an atmosphere of poverty but his parents somehow managed to put him through several years of grammar school where a family friend, the Lutheran preacher Franz Albert Schultz (student of the then foremost philosopher in Germany, Christian Wolff), recognized Kant’s talent. He recommended that the boy should attend the Lutheran Collegium Fridericianum, a strict Latin school where Kant studied classic texts and was taught to separate the social customs of religion from his intellectual and moral interests; a lesson he endeavoured to follow throughout his entire life.

‘Dogmatic Slumbers’

During the course of his study at the University of Königsberg, Kant eventually became critical of many of the rationalist and empiricist principles. While he recognized the strength of the empiricist claim that sense experience is the source of our beliefs, he could not accept the conclusion that those beliefs cannot be justified. He also rejected the rationalist claim that factual truths about what does, and does not exist, can be conclusively established by reason alone.

Although Kant was reluctantly convinced of some of Hume’s empiricist arguments, he one day “awoke from his dogmatic slumbers” and in a flash of inspiration envisioned how he could construct a system in response to what he considered to be Hume’s destructive skepticism. It came in the form of his most important work – Kant published eight books from between 1781 and 1797, most famous and most influential of these was his first, Kritik der reinen Vernunft or The Critique of Pure Reason.

The book’s title refers to a critical analysis of pure reason, by which is meant knowledge that does not come through the senses, but knowledge that is ours due to the inherent nature and structure of the mind. Kant rejects the view of Locke and Hume that all our knowledge is derived from the senses. However, Kant granted Hume’s point that absolute certainty of knowledge is not possible if knowledge comes from sensation, from an independent external world that can give us no promise of regularity of behaviour.

Hume’s problem of induction was that experience can show something is the case but can’t show that it must be the case. Hume demonstrated that inductive reasoning was not valid and this meant that science was not possible. Hume says that there are no necessary truths which science claims to discover. He also says that the only cause and effect is psychological misunderstanding by showing that people were irrational. The role of reason is to define the relation of ideas. Kant objected to Hume’s idea ethically, he thought that it was essential that humans are rational in order for them to be moral and free.

Metaphysics and The Philosophical Deadlock

Kant believed modern philosophy was in an inescapable deadlock due to these two areas of thought. He believed that both shared certain fundamental assumptions which needed to be rejected to break this deadlock.
The proponents of Rationalism claimed that metaphysical knowledge of the world was possible through reasoning. For instance, Spinoza gave numerous theories about the nature of the universe based on a view of principles derived from reason. Kant opposed such beliefs, calling it impossible.

Kant suggested that although reason cannot surpass experience, we do learn via a-priori in part, Kant created synthetic and analytic propositions, analytic are those which are proven by themselves as obvious for example; ‘a tall man is a man’ synthetic propositions which are proven through experience such as; ‘Sunday was warm’. Kant thus said that it was possible to assume knowledge via a-priori, I.e. something that can be known entirely independent from experience.

Kant’s crucial primary point is that experience gives us nothing but separate sensations and so here actually agrees with Hume. Hence it gives us no general truths. These must be independent of experience, i.e. a-priori. Kant takes mathematics as an illustration of how far we can advance independently of experience. The truths of mathematics are absolute and do not need to be verified by experience. Two plus two will always equal four regardless of any future experiences we may have.

The truths of mathematics derive their necessary character from the inherent structure of our minds, from the natural manner in which our minds must operate. It did not seem to occur to Kant that – as previous philosophers before him and suggested, our minds could be inherently faulty, i.e. Plato, Wittgenstein.

Kant’s suggested the appropriate conditions for any possible experience. He argued that all experience must conform to the conditions of space and time. He attempted to establish these conditions with arguments known as transcendental arguments; the most important of which is the Transcendental Deduction. In Kant’s wording, these are the a-priori forms of any possible experience that can be had.

His second part, Transcendental Idealism, in essence, states that the world must have the same structure as experience, simply because experience must have it. In this manner, the structure of the world depends on that of experience, rather than the other way around.

Kant compared this wholly new and unique idea to that of Copernicus; that the earth is still and the sun revolves around it. Taking a revolutionary position, he maintained that the mind is active and plays a part in shaping the world of experience. In other words, instead of knowledge consisting in our minds and conforming to a world of objects, Kant maintained that objects must conform to our minds. Thus, the mind plays a part in the nature of the empirical world. He also made the point that there is a distinction between appearances (phenomena) and things in themselves apart from experience (noumena).

Kant said that we never have direct experience of things known as the nomenual world, and what we actually do experience is the phenomenal world conveyed by our senses. We shape our experience through the mind – they are programmed into our mind, we do not learn them through experience.

Kant’s view of an experience, according to himself, required both a sensory input and a conceptual element. In his words, both sensibility and understanding. This is how Kant supersedes Rationalism and Empiricism because before this, both assumed that there is only one source of knowledge, reason or experience respectively.

For Kant, the difference between them is one of a kind. Kant says, “the senses can think nothing and the understanding cannot receive intuitions.” According to Kant, intuitions are the sensory element within experience, which is received and which makes our experience of particulars. Concepts are the classificatory or general elements within experience. Since the one does not make sense without the other, we should not think of them as elements of experience, which can exist independently. This is why Kant wrote that neither the sensory nor the understanding alone, can suffice for experience. Apart from their role in experience, concepts have no real sense.

Two stages of knowledge

Kant identified two stages in the process whereby our mind applies sensation into actual thoughts. The first stage is the coordination of sensations by applying to them the forms of perception – space and time. The second stage is the coordination of perceptions by applying to them the forms of conception – the 12 categories of thought.

Stage one consists of a sensation that is merely the awareness of a stimulus, such as taste on the tongue. The mind groups the various sensations about an object and the various sensations of smell, light and taste are united to constitute a “thing”. This is what Kant means by a perception.

In the second stage, the mind raises the perceptual knowledge of objects into the conceptual knowledge. Just as the mind arranged sensations around objects in space and time, so in the second stage the mind arranges perceptions (objects and events) about certain basic ideas. According to Kant these are: unity, plurality, totality, reality, negation, limitation, substance-and-accident, cause-and-effect, reciprocity, possibility, necessity, and contingency.

These categories are the pre-existing structures in the mind into which perceptions are received, and by which they are classified and moulded into the ordered concepts of thought. Objects serve as the building blocks of all thought; the bridge to the ideas that we have of the world.

In other words, the world as we know it is a construction. Will Durant writes: ”The world is a construct to which the mind contributes as much by its moulding as things-in-themselves contribute through stimuli.” Kant wrote, “It remains completely unknown to us what objects may be in themselves and apart from the receptivity of our senses. We know nothing but our manner of perceiving them.” Kant does not doubt the existence of the external world; he merely asserts that we know nothing about it except that it exists.

Morality and Ethics

Kant’s second work entitled The Critique of Practical Reason is dedicated to the ethical part of his system. The result is his principle the “categorical imperative” and the basis for all moral action. It states:

”Act only in accord with a principle which you would at the same time will to be a universal law.”

For Kant doing the right thing was not a matter of character or circumstance, but a matter of duty – stating that the moral worth of an action should not be judged according to its consequences, but by duty. Therefore, according to Kant’s ethical system, we should never tell a lie, steal or break promises regardless of what consequences this might entail.

Based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality, in Kant’s eyes, reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason. Kant described two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed – an unbreakable moral law of absolutes, i.e. lies are always wrong, regardless of the situation they are used in.

Present day followers of Aristotle or Wittgenstein totally and completely oppose unbreakable ethical and moral principles, preferring to focus on relative morality, such as cultural and social principles that are perhaps in line with their community’s traditions, usually under a title such as norms, commitments, traditions, or duties.

Kant sees it that ethics are to provide a criteria for which we can scrutinise the principle of actions, which we might seek to make basic decisions. He also says that the concepts of right and wrong are absolute. He calls these maxims – the principles we adopt to govern all aspects of our lives.

The categorical imperative has 3 maxims;

1. All actions are universal; meaning you have to consider whether your actions would be acceptable if everyone constantly did them,

2. Every human being must be treated as an end, not a means to an end so there can be no manipulation or lying, and the concept of the greater good is rejected,

3. You must always act with yourself as the highest moral authority.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Kant wanted to show that philosophers and scientists were not able, and would never be able to give definitive answers to questions about the nature of the physical world and of the human mind, and about the existence of a Supreme Being.

Despite his exact work not thoroughly being accepted, his work changed philosophy’s conception of what and how things can be known and his teachings continue to inspire new philosophical discussion. Both Descartes and Hume were refuted by what is known as the ”Copernican Revolution” in philosophy and makes induction -scientific laws, possible, so now useful knowledge about the universe could be gained, without needing to know absolutely everything; which we can truly never know never as a human know.

For example, without Kant’s work disproving Hume, it is likely that Newton’s scientific laws would never be theorized because any form of scientific/inductive induction would not be possible if Hume’s was never challenged. This forever changed the course of scientific learning and understand and immense scientific discoveries were rapidly made at a rate unseen before in history.

Will Durant commented: “Never has a system of thought so dominated an epoch as the philosophy of Immanuel Kant dominated the thought of the nineteenth century.”

The End of Greco-Roman Civilisation

In his historical series ‘Civilisation’, Kenneth Clark blamed the decline of the ancient Greek and Roman societies on a single cause: exhaustion. The ‘feeling of hopelessness which can overcome people even with a high degree of material prosperity’. He explained further:

”Civilisation requires a modicum of material prosperity.. but, far more, it requires confidence – confidence in the society in which one lives, belief in its philosophy, belief in its laws.. vigour, energy, vitality: all the great civilisations – or civilising epochs, have had a weight of energy behind them.

”Some Roman writers from the late Classical era who were particularly pessimistic – or perhaps as Clark would say, simply bored, asked if civilisation was even worth preserving. But there was no time for debate as Marcus Aurelius – a Roman Emperor from late-Classical times foreseeing the decline of his empire stated:

”Nothing makes a difference any more”. This was true. In about 50 years Western Europe was overrun.

How did this happen? It took Edward Gibbon nine volumes of books to describe the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. This is something that tells us about the nature of civilisations that however complex and solid they may seem, are actually very fragile and can be destroyed and mostly forgotten unless their knowledge is preserved by others.

This – according to Clark, was due to fear. What is the point of building a permanent stone structure or planting crops for the winter if some barbarians are just going to come along and de-construct your building or steal your crops? Also, a blatant fear of the supernatural which the Greco-Roman world sought to overcome, returned, so people didn’t dare change old traditions. The final reason mentioned was that for hundreds of years of no change breeds exhaustion and boredom. Simply put, the Roman Empire succumbed to the same weaknesses as the people they conquered.

Christians

After the collapse of Rome, Europe was sealed off by Islam surrounding it. If a new civilization was to be born it would have to face the Atlantic. Many Christians fled to the British Isles, mostly Ireland, to escape the brutal anarchy across Europe after the fall of the only significant stabilizing state.

It is difficult to believe Christianity survived by clinging onto these desolate, inhospitable places, but this religion soon gained ground all over these territories starting with the conversion of Ireland to ‘Celtic Christianity’ for example. For one hundred years, after starting in the mid-5th century, groups of educated monks huddled off the coast of Ireland, writing and decorating religious books that had little resemblance or reference to classically written gospels. The Book of Iona was the most famous because – although it was never completed, it signified the beginning of the Viking raids upon Britain.

Barbarians and art

These Nordic men where the last peoples in Europe to accept Christianity. They contributed the spirit of Columbus to western civilisation due to their vast voyages which took them as far as the Americas and China.

What did these barbarians want? In a word. Gold. For great works of art that are created in barbarous societies using fine decorations are very vital in analysing their cultures and comparing them to our own. Clark argues that in fact, Western civilisation was equally saved – alongside Christian monks, by these magnificent craftsmen. Compare a Nordic mask with Apollo the Belvedere (for four hundred years the most admired piece of art in the world. It was Napoleons greatest boast to have looted it from the Vatican). The mask is seen in a world of fear and darkness, ready to punish for the smallest overstep of tradition. The Hellenistic Greek world is of light and confidence, beyond the daily struggle for survival. This Hellenistic world strove for perfection, by imposing order on the natural world through art.

Greek architecture formed in around the 5th century BC could be found across the Mediterranean, Italy, North Africa, Asia minor and southern France. It was seen as indestructible and most sites still stand to this day whilst few things constructed a 1000 years later remain in our current time. One of very few buildings to be built in and survive the dark ages was the Baptistery in southern France. Its builders attempted to copy Roman designs but the end result looked in comparison pitifully crude.

Civilization needs something more than energy and will and creative power, it needs a sense of permanence, and these Vikings and other barbarians didn’t build in stone or write books.

For over 500 years either achievement was rare in western Europe. He also adds:
”It is a shock to realise that during all this time no lay person, from kings and emperors downwards, could read or write..”

Charlemagne

Although the monasteries preserved some knowledge from the classical era, they couldn’t have been the custodians of western civilisation unless there had been order and stability in Europe; and this was first achieved in the Kingdom of the Franks. Clovis and his successors (notably Charlemagne – charlamane) not only conquered their enemies, but unified themselves into a permanent government, fighting off inside barbarian and outside Islamic invasion.

Clark recognizes Charlemagne as the first great man to emerge from darkness since the collapse of Rome. He learnt to read, but could not write. But even this alone made him the most educated King in western Europe for hundreds of years and up until Alfred the Great almost a century later. Alongside his teacher Alcuin of York, Charlemagne collected rare classical manuscripts and had them copied. Our whole knowledge of ancient literature is almost entirely due to the collection and copying that began under Charlemagne and almost any classical text that survived until his time in the 8th century has survived till today.

Through him the Atlantic world officially reunited contact with the Mediterranean world: the Byzantines that had avoided the western barbarians because they had eastern enemies at the gates to deal with. In Constantinople, the Classical world survived somewhat intact although cut off and surrounded – under siege by the Muslim world.

Charlemagne was crowned in 800 as the new Emperor of Rome although one still existed in theory in Byzantium, creating much tension between both Empires, let alone between leaders in western Europe. This was so the Pope could reassert his hegemony over Europe once again. This was said by him to be a mistake and it produced battles for some three centuries after and the tension between the spiritual and state authorities throughout the middle ages rose dramatically, though this was precisely what kept European civilisation alive, according to historian David Munford – because if either power had achieved absolute dominance, society may have remained as static as the civilisations of Egypt and Byzantine. Also notable is that Charlemagne’s Chapalat Aachen palace was the first major stone building to be built for over 300 years.

Charlemagne is seen by Clark as most responsible for keeping Europe ‘united’ and preserving much of classical culture. He held western Europe together until his death when the Frankish Empire broke down and from there emerged the general borders of the Europe we know. France to the west and Germany to the east. This collapse was seen by some that Europe experienced a period of decline even worse than that which followed the sack of Rome.

For this reason, historians usually consider the tenth century almost as dark and anarchic as the seventh. That is because they look at it from the point of view of political and literary history, for the amount of art created is impressive. The Kings Lothear and Charles the Bald commissioned beautiful jewel-covered manuscripts for example. This century also symbolised the end of gold and jewelled creations as simply the possessions of barbarians representing a warrior’s courage and other values, but now was used in religion to signify the glory of god. The art that followed this renewal was dominated by religion, as opposed to classical art which held a priority upon man or nature. Clark states that the subject of mostly secular Greco-Roman art was man. But, of the Middle Ages, he comments: ”Two hundred years have passed.. and man has almost vanished”. He is of course talking about man pictured in art.

The Church’s cultural and political dominance

The idea of the crucifixion in Christianity was not adopted as the major symbol of the Christian faith until the 10th century. Prior to this, the early church needed converts and the crucifixion was not an encouraging subject from this point of view. So early Christian art is focussed primarily upon miracles such as healings and other things which inspired hope.

If you had asked the typical man during the Middle Ages to what country he belonged, he would not have understood you. He would have know only to what bishopric; ecclesiastical figures who nevertheless administered the secular authority and those who lived within it. The Church and area it controlled, – known by this time as Christendom, held power far more intense than that of any King by the first millennium.

By the end of the episode ‘The Skin of out Teeth’, Clarke concedes that by the 10th century the Church emerged as a new power in Europe. ”It was a great humaniser.” It defined art, culture and human relations with each other and the state, and had replaced the long dominance of the barbarous wanderers which had now come to an end. However, he notes throughout that: ”In so far as we are the descendants of Greece and Rome, we got through by the skin of our teeth.”

Descartes and the Begining of Modern Philosophy

Rene Descartes is considered to be the first modern philosopher and most 20^th philosophers are thought to be simply reacting to his conclusions.

In the 17^th and 18^th century Western philosophy was in strife – split between British empiricism (figures such as Locke and Bacon) and continental rationalism (such proponents as Leibniz and Spinoza), both camps disagreed with one another on the topic of epistemology and metaphysics.

Important to add to the context is that in this time, scholasticism was the most prestigious method of education; it entailed Aristotelian values with a significant religion input. Scholasticism used logical methodology to deduce and then resolve contradictions. It was also qualitative, looking at objects and people and how they worked behaved, i.e., their qualities, and it was this manner in which Descartes was educated

Despite his education, Descartes resolved to perceive reality in a more quantitative way.

He proposed that knowledge was unified by metaphysics and gave the idea of knowledge as a tree; metaphysics would be the trunk and the many branches would be different types of knowledge we know to be true.

Cartesian Doubt

By laying this foundation, Descartes wanted to discover the absolute truths about existence, so he first discarded everything he thought he knew about reality and the nature of the universe, using methodological scepticism known in his case as Cartesian Doubt to confirm what could be known with utter and complete certainty. If there was any reason at all to possibly doubt something then that should be immediately discarded as an idea as there was – however slight, a chance that it was not true.

Slowly but surely he became very depressed as he had immense difficulty finding anything he could be completely sure of. Because we perceive the world, he discovered, through our external senses, we can never be certain of anything we perceive through them as they are all fallible and he worried that our minds – and so our senses were controlled by a demon toying with us.

The Breakthrough

Despite this pessimism, he eventually found one ”tiny island of certainty in a sea of doubt.” He realised that although he ended up discarded every idea he had come up with, he was in fact thinking of each idea and rationally disputing each one so that eve if he was thinking wrongly, he was still thinking – so the only thing he could ever be sure of that exists is ourselves or more specifically, our minds – Cogito Ergo Sum.

Cartesian Dualism

Coming to his conclusion, Descartes sought to rebuild the world from solid foundations using God as an infinite and unquestionable link, known as Cartesian Dualism. If God is great and good, why would he deceive us? So there is no need to doubt the world as it is being perceived. Descartes needed to prevent his idea being changed to solipsism, which is the idea that you believe that only you exist and everything you perceive is just in your imagination.

His argument for the existence is God is simply: the Ontological Argument; the definition of God necessitates his existence. i.e. God is a perfect supreme being by definition so therefore he must exist. This argument is almost universally rejected in the modern era as although God by definition is perfect, it was infallible and imperfect humans who came up with the concept of God.

Bertrand Russell gives credence to this opposition of the Ontological Argument: ”God is simply a figment of our minds and the fact that he is ‘the greatest object of thought’ is not sufficient evidence to determine his existence. He must be able to exist independently.”

Despite this present-day opinion, Descartes heralded in the start of modern philosophy and countless theories and ideas from the Dark Ages were either entirely abandoned, or at least, met with near universal condemnation.

The Dreyfus Affair and Anti-Semitism

The Dreyfus Affair was a political crisis in the French Third Republic, starting from 1894 through to 1906, and although it was concluded more than a century ago, France is still feeling the fallout today.

Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a French army officer from Alsace-Lorraine was wrongfully convicted of treason for supposedly selling military secrets to Germany in December 1894.

At first the public 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 apparent disloyalty of French Jews, even those in the military – undoubtedly the most respected French institution at the time.

Context

French society was very divided and the army – the source of French pride since 1789 was the only thing that united France. 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).

Fast forward to the end of 1871 where the French became even more militaristic after their loss the Prussia and revanchism soon became a powerful force in the public sphere. In fact, ever since that defeat it had been 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 distrustful of Jews that they would rather be rid of them in France, for example, than have them as enthusiastic French citizens and even soldiers against Germany. Prior to the scandal, most European Jews tried to assimilate into their host nations. Theodor Herzel for example proposed a baptism for every Jew 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 envision a future Jewish state in the 20^th century.

It also showed the utter failure of the monarchist and right-wing nationalist and reactionary forces, and resulted in the strengthening of parliament democracy. This was very significant for a country that had in a 100 years undergone absolute monarchy, revolution, numerous dictatorships and even came close to a military coup in 1889.