четверг, 17 июня 2021 г.

Google 37



In the history of every nation there are pages that cannot be called otherwise than gloomy. France in the last decade of the 19th century was “stained” with a dirty court case on a false accusation of espionage of an honest officer Alfred Dreyfus. The outbreak of political struggle associated with it, the close attention of the world community brought the "Dreyfus case" beyond the scope of jurisprudence.

Alfred Dreyfus was born in 1859 in Alsace to a wealthy Jewish family. A well-educated young man with a talent for military affairs was destined for a brilliant military career. According to the reviews of relatives and friends, he was incorruptibly honest and infinitely devoted to his native France. In 1894, fatal for him, Dreyfus, with the rank of captain of artillery, was at the General Staff of the French army.

In the spring of that year, the Minister of War of France, General Mercier, made a report in Parliament "On the state of the army and navy." He painted a rosy picture: the army and navy are in exemplary condition, everything is magnificent and flawless! The deputies applauded his speech. Meanwhile, the general's report was false. The military situation of the country inspired anxiety. Treason was nesting in the General Staff of France. Important documents disappeared and then reappeared there. Obviously, someone took them away, and then put them back in their place.

In September 1894, the French counterintelligence attacked the trail, and there was hope to catch the culprit. One of the agents of the French General Staff was the watchman of the German embassy in Paris. It was his duty to collect everything that could be found in the wastebaskets, in the garbage swept, in the ashes raked out of stoves and fireplaces. It was he who provided the counterintelligence with a letter torn to small pieces, addressed to the German military attache and containing an inventory of the five most important secret notes of the French General Staff. The letter was called "bordereau" - from the French word for "inventory".

The handwriting of the letter could be the key to unraveling the mystery. By a fatal accident, the handwriting of the bordereau turned out to be similar to the handwriting of Captain Dreyfus. Expert graphologists have carefully studied Dreyfus's handwriting and have given conflicting conclusions. Many of them believed the captain was innocent. But the leaders of the General Staff did not want to listen to their opinion. Modest, without noble relatives and influential intercessors, Dreyfus was a black sheep in the aristocratic environment of the officers of the General Staff. Jewish origin made it possible to make him the object of hatred of nationalists. It was convenient to blame him and write off the abuses and unrest in the French army.
Major du Paty de Klam, a man of dubious moral character, was assigned to conduct an investigation into the case of the arrested captain. Du Paty forced the captain to write in prison with his left hand, then lying down, then sitting - this is how he achieved the greatest resemblance to the handwriting of the bordereau. Wishing to take Dreyfus by surprise, to force him to let it slip, the major suddenly burst into Dreyfus's cell, deliberately darkened, and directed a bright light at him. Everything was in vain. The courageous captain, for whom the arrest came as a complete surprise, firmly, without hesitation or confusion, continued to prove his innocence. He refused to plead guilty in exchange for a lenient sentence, and turned down an offer to commit suicide. Even the commandant of the prison believed in the innocence of his prisoner. The investigation was unable to substantiate the accusation with any evidence. Even in the question of whether the bordereau was written by hand

Dreyfus, the experts continued to disperse. But the generals of the General Staff, who despised honor, justice and legality, by all means needed the guilt of Dreyfus. At the suggestion of the army elite, information about the case was leaked to the press. The right-wing newspapers raised an unimaginable noise about a criminal such as history did not know, about a scoundrel who sold Germany the military plans and documents of his homeland. Millions of citizens, accustomed to believing the printed word, could not even imagine what a monstrous lie is poured out on them. A wave of anti-Semitism was rising. The accusation of espionage of the Jew Dreyfus made it possible for the chauvinists to launch attacks on the Jews, to declare them responsible for all the troubles of the French.

Dreyfus was tried by a military court behind closed doors. The helplessness of the prosecution, the absence of indisputable facts, the representatives of the General Staff countered with the notorious military secret: there is evidence, but the need to preserve military secrets does not allow them to be presented. And yet, despite the rough pressure of the generals, the judges hesitated. Then, with the knowledge of the Minister of War, the investigator secretly handed over to the room where the judges were deliberating, a crudely fabricated forgery - a note allegedly written by the German ambassador to someone in Germany: "This rascal D. is becoming too demanding." Hastily concocted paper tipped the scales. The court found Dreyfus guilty of high treason and sentenced him to demotion and life exile on the distant Devil's Island near French Guiana. The shocked defender of Dreyfus declared: "The condemnation of Dreyfus is the greatest crime of our century!" However, the long-term epic of Dreyfus's ordeals was just beginning.
After the verdict was passed, a disgusting ceremony of public demotion took place - in the square, in front of the troops, with the confluence of the people. To the thunder of drums and the sound of trumpets, four gunners with sabers unsheathed Dreyfus. In full dress uniform, with a sword, deathly pale, he walked confidently, his head thrown high. Addressing the troops, Dreyfus shouted in a firm and clear voice: “Soldiers, I swear to you - I am innocent! Long live France! Long live the army! Under the hooting of onlookers, officer stripes were torn from Dreyfus's cap, from his dolman. They threw to the ground pieces of a sword broken over his head ...

The next night, he was sent by sea to another hemisphere, to Devil's Island, nicknamed the bloodless guillotine because of the destructive climate. Years passed slowly, and it seemed that everyone forgot about the unfortunate man. But it wasn't.

In 1897, the attention of the French public was again drawn to the notorious case. Colonel of the General Staff Picard doubted the guilt of Dreyfus even during the trial. After the expulsion of Dreyfus, Picard was appointed the new chief of counterintelligence of the General Staff. He studied the details of the sensational case and came to the firm conclusion that Dreyfus was not a spy. Soon he managed to intercept a postcard from the German embassy addressed to Major of the General Staff Count Charles-Marie Fernand Esterhazy. Surveillance was established behind him, revealing his connection with foreign intelligence services. The true author of the ill-fated bordereau, Esterhazy loved only money, extracting it through fraud, extortion, forgery. He hated and despised France. “I would not kill a puppy,” he wrote in one letter, “but I would gladly shoot a hundred thousand Frenchmen.”

However, the spy Count Esterhazy turned out to be closer to the French military elite than the innocent Dreyfus. And when Picard, having reported to the authorities about the identification of the real criminal, offered to arrest Esterhazy and release Dreyfus, the generals of the General Staff calmed the excessively zealous colonel; soon he was sent on an expedition to distant Africa.
Odnako slukhi o tom, chto Genshtab ukryvayet prestupnika, rasprostranilis'. Gazeta «Figaro» pomestila fotografiyu bordero. Teper' vsyakiy, znakomyy s pocherkom Estergazi, mog ubedit'sya v tom, chto pisal bordero imenno on. Brat osuzhdonnogo kapitana Mat'ye Dreyfus vozbudil sudebnoye delo protiv Estergazi kak shpiona i predatelya. A pochtennyy senator, vitse-prezident senata Sherer-Kestner sdelal spetsial'nyy zapros pravitel'stvu. Strusivshiy bylo Estergazi bystro uspokoilsya. On ponyal, chto peresmotr dela Dreyfusa ne v interesakh voyennykh rukovoditeley. Oni ne zakhotyat vynosit' sor iz izby i ogradyat izmennika ot spravedlivogo vozmezdiya. Tak i sluchilos'. Estergazi predstal pered voyennym sudom, no byl opravdan, nesmotrya na ochevidnyye fakty. Zlo vostorzhestvovalo vnov', demokraticheskaya obshchestvennost' Frantsii byla oskorblena. I ne uspeli Estergazi i yego pokroviteli vzdokhnut' spokoyno, kak zagremel novyy grom. V bor'bu vklyuchilsya vsemirno izvestnyy frantsuzskiy pisatel', kavaler ordena Pochotnogo legiona Emil' Zolya- On s bol'yu sledil za razvitiyem dela Dreyfusa. Posle skandal'nogo opravdaniya prestupnika Zolya ne mog molchat'. Pisatel' vystupil v pechati s otkrytym pis'mom k prezidentu Frantsii Feliksu Foru. «Gospodin prezident! — pisal Zolya. — Kakim komom gryazi log na Vashe imya protsess Dreyfusa! A opravdaniye Estergazi — neslykhannaya poshchochina, nanesonnaya istine i spravedlivosti. Gryaznyy sled etoy poshchochiny pyatnayet lik Frantsii!» Pisatel' otkryto obvinil vlasti i sud v soznatel'nom osuzhdenii nevinovnogo. V svoyom pis'me pisatel' preduprezhdal: «Kogda pravdu khoronyat vo mrake podzemel'ya, ona nabirayet tam takuyu neodolimuyu silu, chto v odin prekrasnyy den' proiskhodit vzryv, razrushayushchiy vso i vsya». Za oskorbleniye vlastey Zolya byl predan sudu. Protsess privlok mnogikh storonnikov pravogo dela, luchshikh predstaviteley Frantsii, druzey Zolya — vozhdya sotsialistov Zhana Zhoresa, pisatelya Ana-tolya Fransa, lyudey iskusstva i politicheskikh deyateley. No ne dremala i reaktsiya — nayomnyye bandity vryvalis' v zal suda, ustraivali ovatsii protivnikam Dreyfusa i Zolya, orali i ulyulyukali, zaglushaya rechi zashchitnikov, pytalis' uchinit' na ulitse samosud nad Zolya. Pisatel' prevratil svoyo mesto na skam'ye podsudimykh v tribunu dlya zashchity Dreyfusa. V svoyom poslednem slove on skazal: «...Dreyfus nevinoven, klyanus' vam v etom! Klyanus' moim sorokaletnim pisatel'skim trudom, klyanus' moyey chest'yu, moim dobrym imenem! Yesli Dreyfus vinoven, pust' pogibnut vse moi knigi! Net, on ni v chom ne vinovat, on stradayet bez vsyakoy viny...» Sud vynes Zolya obvinitel'nyy prigovor — zaklyucheniye v tyur'mu na odin god i shtraf v 3 tys. frankov. Pisatelya lishili ordena Pochotnogo legiona. V znak protesta ot svoyego ordena otkazalsya i Anatol' Frans.
Show more
2,675 / 5,000
Translation results
However, rumors that the General Staff was harboring a criminal spread. The Le Figaro newspaper published a photograph of the bordereau. Now anyone familiar with Esterhazy's handwriting could be convinced that it was he who wrote the bordereau. The brother of the convicted captain, Mathieu Dreyfus, filed a lawsuit against Esterhazy as a spy and traitor. And the venerable Senator, Vice President of the Senate Scherer-Kestner made a special request to the government.

Esterhazy, who was afraid, quickly calmed down. He realized that revisiting the Dreyfus case was not in the interests of the military leaders. They will not want to take dirty linen out of the hut and will protect the traitor from just retribution. And so it happened. Esterhazy was brought before a military court, but was acquitted despite the obvious facts. Evil triumphed again, the democratic public of France was offended. And before Esterhazy and his patrons had time to breathe calmly, a new thunder rumbled.

The world-famous French writer, Chevalier of the Legion of Honor Emile Zola joined the fight. He followed the development of the Dreyfus case with pain. After the scandalous acquittal of the criminal, Zola could not remain silent. The writer published an open letter to French President Felix Faure. "Mr. President! Zola wrote. - What a lump of dirt fell on your name the Dreyfus trial! And Esterhazy's justification is an unheard-of slap on the face of truth and justice. The dirty trace of this slap stains the face of France!” The writer openly accused the authorities and the court of deliberately condemning the innocent. In his letter, the writer warned: “When the truth is buried in the darkness of the dungeon, it gains such irresistible strength there that one fine day an explosion occurs that destroys everything and everyone.”

For insulting the authorities, Zola was put on trial. The process attracted many supporters of the just cause, the best representatives of France, friends of Zola - the leader of the socialists Jean Jaurès, the writer Anatole France, artists and politicians. But the reaction did not doze off either - hired bandits burst into the courtroom, gave a standing ovation to the opponents of Dreyfus and Zola, yelled and hooted, drowning out the speeches of the defenders, tried to commit lynching of Zola on the street. The writer turned his place in the dock into a podium for the defense of Dreyfus. In his last word, he said: “... Dreyfus is innocent, I swear it to you! I swear by my forty years of writing, I swear by my honor, my good name! If Dreyfus is guilty, let all my books perish! No, he is not guilty of anything, he suffers without any guilt ... ”The court pronounced a guilty verdict on Zola - imprisonment for one year and a fine of 3 thousand francs. The writer was deprived of the Order of the Legion of Honor. In protest, Anatole France also refused his order.
The instability of the political life of France in recent years has grown into a political crisis. The fate of the captain of the French army has become the personification of a political problem. They started talking about it in the government, the Chamber of Deputies. She was on everyone's lips.

The reaction triumphed. A wave of Jewish pogroms swept through the cities of France. Right-wing bourgeois parties sought to prevent reforms in the country. Monarchists dreamed of restoring the old order, preparing a conspiracy against the republic.

The country was divided into two camps: Dreyfusards - supporters of the justification of Dreyfus - and anti-Dreyfusards, supporters of his condemnation. As if two France collided: reactionary, chauvinistic, militaristic - and progressive, laboring, thinking. The air smelled of civil war.

In August 1898, unable to withstand the nervous tension, Esterhazy fled abroad, giving himself away completely. In February 1899, taking advantage of the death of President Faure, on the day of his funeral, monarchists and nationalists launched an unsuccessful attempt at a coup d'état. The scales swung in the direction of the Dreyfusards. The new government of the country was headed by a member of the Moderate Republican Party, a prominent lawyer, a brilliant orator, an experienced and sensible politician, Waldeck-Rousseau. The case was reviewed. In August, the most odious anti-Dreyfusards, participants in the February conspiracy, were arrested. Brought from Devil's Island, Dreyfus appeared before a new military court in the city of Rennes. But the chauvinists were not going to give up. The anti-Dreyfusards created unbearable conditions for the court. During the trial, a sent bandit wounded the defender of Dreyfus and Zola, Labori's lawyer. Even now the staff officers could not admit the recognition of Dreyfus's innocence, and the military court again did not dare to contradict them, covering itself with indelible shame. Dreyfus was again found guilty, but due to extenuating circumstances, he was sentenced to demotion and ten years in exile. The second condemnation of Dreyfus showed the whole world the reactionary nature of the top generals and the venality of the military court.

Newly elected French President Émile Loubet intervened, pardoning Dreyfus on the pretext of ill health. Dreyfus was fully rehabilitated only in July 1906. He died in 1935.

The Dreyfus case brought to light with horrifying frankness the impotence of a decent man, ground to pieces by a ruthless military-political machine. For contemporaries, it became a strict test of personal decency, conscience and common sense. The events of the turn of the century will remain a serious warning about the danger of unbridled chauvinism.
The life of Benjamin Disraeli, Lord of Beacon Field, is like an amazing adventure novel. Countless biographers have devoted numerous studies to Disraeli. The reason for the great interest in his personality is that he laid the foundations of popular, or democratic, conservatism, the ideas of which are now widespread and enjoy the support of the population in the West, especially in Great Britain. Benjamin Disraeli, British statesman and writer, was born December 21, 1804 in London. Benjamin's father, Isaac D'Israeli, was a famous English writer and literary critic. Mother, Maria Besevi, came from a noble Portuguese Jewish family Ville-real. Benjamin did not receive the education traditional for the people of his circle. However, he stubbornly educated himself and acquired extensive knowledge of classical literature, history, religion and the history of politics. Reading was Disraeli's favorite pastime throughout his life. Books gave him everything he needed for literary and political activities.

Isaac D'Israeli dreamed that his son would become a lawyer, so Benjamin was sent to study at a firm of London lawyers. The work, however, did not please the young clerk. Subsequently, Disraeli wrote about this period of his life as follows: * I spent the evenings at home alone and was always engaged in self-education. I became pensive and restless, and even before my 20s I was forced to put an end to my father's dream. Nothing could satisfy me but travel. Then my father made a feeble attempt to send me to Oxford, but the hour of adventure had come.” Disraeli's inherent ambition, desire for fame, success and material well-being made him want more than a boring job in a law office. With the recklessness characteristic of youth, he embarked on adventures, the deplorable results of which made themselves felt throughout his subsequent life. Trying to get rich quick, Disraeli took up speculation on the stock exchange. The result was financial disaster and huge debts. Having failed on the stock exchange, he tried to start publishing a political newspaper. This enterprise also ended in failure, but the failure of the newspaper prompted Disraeli to take up independent literary activity. In 1826, he wrote the novel Vivian Gray, in which he unfairly shifted all the blame for his failures to his father's friend, the famous publisher Murray. The book was a scandalous success, because the author brought out in it many representatives of high society as negative characters. The names were fictitious, of course, but the identities were easily recognizable.
The first failures caused Disraeli to have a nervous breakdown, due to which he was interested in almost nothing for the next four years. Travel is the best medicine. First, he went on a trip to Europe, and in 1830 - on a 16-month journey through the states of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Returning to London, Disraeli plunged headlong into the social and literary life of the capital. Outstanding abilities, great erudition and excellent skill in oratory quickly attracted the attention of high society to him .. However, his great conceit, extravagant dressing and somewhat scandalous reputation made his presence in the homes of some noble people undesirable.

By 1831, Disraeli had finally determined the scope of his activities. This is politics. Moreover, as in all endeavors, Disraeli sets himself the highest possible goals. Even at the beginning of his political career, when asked what he would like to achieve, Disraeli invariably answered: "I want to become Prime Minister of Great Britain." In the 30s. 19th century it sounded fantastic. A serious obstacle to the achievement of this goal was his Jewish origin. At that time in England, the Jews were still limited in civil rights, and there was a strong prejudice against them in society. However, the main thing was that Disraeli did not belong to the highest landed aristocracy, from which only people could take the post of prime minister at that time. And yet he made his dream come true. But before that it was still very far away. In the meantime, Disraeli had to take the first step in the political arena - to get into Parliament.

Three times Disraeli tried to win parliamentary elections as an independent radical and was defeated three times before he realized that his criticism of the country's leading political parties would not lead to success. Disraeli has always been distinguished by his ability to accurately assess the situation. He realized that to win the elections it was necessary to join one of the two main parties in Great Britain - the Tories (conservative) or the Whigs, which later became liberal. In his convictions, Disraeli was closer to the conservatives, and in the elections of 1835 he came out as a Tory candidate. However, it took another, fifth attempt, so that in 1837 Disraeli finally got into the British Parliament. The first step to the top has been overcome.
The beginning of parliamentary activity for Disraeli was unsuccessful. In the House of Commons of the British Parliament, much attention has traditionally been paid to the first speech of parliamentarians. For Disraeli, it ended in complete failure. This time, his self-confidence failed him greatly. He decided to immediately demonstrate his high intellectual abilities and thereby aroused the disapproval of the chamber. Upstarts were always treated with suspicion there. In addition, Disraeli devoted his speech to Ireland and the acute national problems associated with it and was booed. Forced to stop his speech, Disraeli concluded with a significant phrase: “I started some things several times and succeeded in the end, although many predicted that I should lose. Now I am sitting down, but the time will come when you will listen to me.”

That time has come very soon. Disraeli never forgot the lessons taught to him. The ability to speak logically and beautifully Disraeli was not to occupy, it only remained to adapt to the conditions of the House of Commons, to understand that one should not always demonstrate one's intellectual superiority. Realizing this, Disraeli soon became one of the leading orators of Parliament and an unsurpassed master of debate in the House of Commons.

Disraeli's contribution to the development of the British political system cannot be assessed without considering his literary heritage. In the second half of the 30s. 19th century in a series of political pamphlets and treatises, Disraeli outlined his theory of Toryism, which he later developed in the novels Coningsby, or the Young Generation, Sybil, or the Two Nations, as well as in a number of public speeches. In fact, he developed the concept of a national party, which allowed the Conservatives to dominate the British political scene in the future. This concept was based on the idea of ​​"one nation" put forward by Disraeli. She proceeded from Disraeli's belief that human society is inherently hierarchical, some people have more abilities than others. Men of great ability make up the true ruling class. It includes, first of all, large landowners, who must wisely lead the country and take care of the rest of society. To substantiate his provisions, Disraeli turned to history. He painted a picture of the "golden age" of England, which never really existed. Disraeli idealized the feudal order, when the landowning lords supposedly kindly treated the peasants and took care of them. But then, with the advent of factory production, the British were divided into two nations - the rich and the poor.

Автор: на

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий

Подписаться на: Комментарии к сообщению (Atom)