History Mathematics can help solve the riddles of history? ....

[chisigma]

As I wrote above, together with mathematics, historical analysis has always been a passion of mine and when possible I have tried to combine the two. Recently, while I'm writing a historical text about the First World War, I had to deal with one of the most complex events of the nineteenth century, the so-called 'Dreyfus Affair'. Since it is a series of events truly remarkable complexity, suggest the preliminary reading of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

... which treats the subject with 'quite acceptable' impartiality. The last word I used is justified by the fact that the affair produced a deep division not only in France but throughout Europe and the far-reaching consequences of it have influenced the entire history of the twentieth century to get to this day. If this may seem exaggerated, it must be remembered that the process to Captain Dreyfus, a French officer jew accused of treason, persuaded the Austrian journalist, also a jew, Theodor Herzl who founded the Zionist movement, giving rise to a sort of 'chain reaction' whose ultimate consequences can be seen these days in Gaza. From the first moment the French public opinion was divided into 'Dreyfusards' and 'Antidreyfusards', a term that still means clerical, reactionary, anti-semitic, fascist, nazi, xenophobic, racist, homophobe and anything else yet. Without wanting to get into a boxing ring, I think that a dispassionate analysis based on the mathematics of certain evidence presented during the celebrated then in France is nevertheless interesting topic, although my experience suggests that in the end, whatever the truth mathematically proven, each will remain his own idea. resent after you read Wiky! ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

 

[chisigma]

Madame Bastian was a respectable middle-age lady who worked as a cleaning lady at the German embassy in Paris and certainly would never have imagined that she herself was destined to light the fuse that would have triggered the terrible chain reaction. Rounded off to the salary she understood very limited for low duties which was used as Madame Bastian worked in his spare time for the French secret service, from which he received, of course, much more substantial rewards. Among the tasks assigned to her there was to set aside the contents of the wastepaper basket dell'attaché militaire German Colonel Von Schwartzkopfen, a military with little attention to security. On September 26, 1894, a day like any other, the material delivered by Madame Bastian turned out to be fragments of a document written by a French officer who was essentially a list of secret documents to send later [will be called 'bordereau', literally 'summary document' ...].The bordereau, obtained with great patience by putting together the pieces of paper, ends up on the desk of Major Hubert Joseph Henry of the French counterintelligence. He realizes the importance of the thing immediately and send the document directly to the Minister of War, General Auguste Mercier, who informs the Prime Minister and President Charles Dupuy Casimir Perrier ... moral: the borderau explodes as a national case...

The French general staff Instructs October 7, 1894 two of his officers, Major Du Paty de Clame and Colonel D'Abouville, to investigate the identity of the officer who had drawn manually bordereau and address these in a short time the suspects to the artillery captain Alfred Dreyfus. Born in 1858 in Mohlhouse to a Jewish family in Alsace in 1871, following the annexation of Alsace by the Prussian Empire, had moved to Paris, Dreyfus had embraced the military career in 1880 and in 1892 was entered in the state increased with the rank of captain. The Minister of War Mercier, however, the 'suspect' is not enough so that, after reading the report of the two officers, passing the job to a professional graphologist of the Bank of France Alfred Golbert. He writes in his report: '... the bordereau is written in a 'quick and spontaneous', there are similarities with the handwriting of Dreyfuss character in general, there are also similarities in the details, there are certain also several important differences. .. '... moral: fifty chances out of a hundred! ...

Rather upset and unable to find better the minister Mercier turns to the Paris Police, which in turn instructs the Director of what their identity judicial Alphonse Bertillon. The vast majority of 'qualified historians' [which does not necessarily means 'impartial' ...] later describe him with all sorts of derogatory terms such as 'incompetent', 'improviser', 'fool', and so on.. Not intending to take absolutely no preconceived attitude I'll just report what is written by him in the report sent to the Minister Mercier: '... if you discard the hypothesis of a falsified document with the greatest diligence, it seems obvious to us that the same person has written documents and the comparison indicted ... '. After Gobart Bertillon and three other experts will be consulted: Pelletier, Charavay and Theyssonnieres. Pelletier, 'editor to the Minister of Fine Arts', will conclude in favor of Dreyfus, saying: '... the diversity outweigh the equalities ...'. Charavay, 'autograph dealer', will line up against with Dreyfus these reasons: '... the bordereau was secret and dangerous and had to be covered up ... hence the equalities count, no differences ...', reasons that will be made own in the process by Bertillon. Theyssonnieres, 'engraver', will focus on the overlap of certain words and to conclude the guilt of Dreyfus. The first time the game ends so three to two against Dreyfus and this is enough to bring him before the court-martial on charges of high treason. ...

On October 15, 1894 Dreyfus is summoned to the Ministry of War, and after writing a dictation text to compare with bordereau too, is taken over by Major Forzinetti and closed in a cell. Forzinetti will query Dreyfus for two weeks and at the end will be one of the few who declare convinced of the innocence of the prisoner. The process starts on the 19th December at the prison of Cherche Midi. The court-martial, composed of seven officers, is chaired by Colonel Maurel. Prosecutor is Major Brisset, Dernange the defender, a civil attorney. The main texts are cited by the prosecution Henry Du Paty and Bertillon. Henry declares under oath that a 'respectable' of which can not, however, 'to name revealed to him months before an officer of the General Staff and betrayed this officer belonged to the second office, where Dreyfus was serving. Bertillon declare under oath that the author of these bordereau is drafted by Dreyfus and has voluntarily changed its writing. The trial, held behind closed doors, was to last only three days, after which the college withdraws into closed session. Everyone expects a quick decision but so it is not because Du Paty did get to the judges, without the knowledge of the defense, a 'secret dossier' containing four documents, the examination of which takes time. On 22 December the court-martial unanimously in issuing the verdict, condemning Dreyfus to degradation and deportation on Devil's Island, off the coast of Cayenne. The degradation takes place January 5, 1895 in the courtyard of the Ecole Militaire. The Dreyfus's grades are torn and broken his sword order. Outside, the crowd shouts: 'Death to the traitor ...! ...' And at the exit of Dreyfus under escort, the mob pulls out the sticks trying to do rough justice. He barely manages to escort him from lynching. On January 25 and Dreyfus' loaded on the prison ship St. Nazaire direct to Devil's Island...

All right boys?... not miss the next episodes!...

Kind regards

 

[chisigma]

In the early months of 1895, except for some occasional 'resurgence' of the press, the French public has 'closed' the Dreyfus affair and there is nothing new to deuxieme bureau, with the exception of the alternation at the top, as the Colonel Sendherr and 'forced out of service for serious health reasons and took his place Colonel Georges Picquart. The 'big bore' ends in March 1896 once again about the 'terrible' Madame Bastian.The Major Henry receives, as usual, the contents of the wastepaper basket of Von Schwartzkoppen that Madame Bastian has diligently recovered but does not have time to examine it because it has to go find his mother in poor health. The bundle comes so directly to Colonel Picquart and it turns out, in the middle of a mountain of waste paper without value, an interesting paper torn to pieces. After patiently rebuilt it turns out that this is the text of a a citizen telegram that the Parisians call it, for the color, petite bleu. Missing the postmark, and then the telegram was written but not sent. The contents of the telegram is not interesting, interesting is the recipient: Monsieur le Commandant Esterhazy - 27, Rue de Bienfaisance. Colonel Picquart proceeds ' by office'. First a picture of the document and then immediately investigates who this 'Commander Esterhazy'. In short learns that Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy is a Major of infantry, born in Paris to a family distantly related to the Hungarian Count Esterhazy. Enlisted in the Foreign Legion, fought in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 without stand out in particular. His characteristic features are anything but positive: addicted to gambling and heavily in debt, is maintained by an actress named Marie Pays, in art 'Marguerite', with which he coexists. For Picquard suspicious at this point is a statement prepared by a French secret agent according to which the German General Staff has never had contact with the Captain Dreyfus, while receiving secret information from an unspecified 'French officer of noble birth'. To the ministry of war exists a dossier containing requests made by Major Esterhazy and comparing the handwritten documents and the borderau, Colonel Picquart note a remarkable similarity. Only now the Colonel, bypassing his direct superior General Arthur Gonse, send a detailed report to the Chief of Staff General Raoul Boisdeffe. But this feeds always interests and ambitions much more political than military and as soon as it gets rid of the 'hot potato' to Gonse. On the next meeting between the Colonel Picquart and General Gonse and was written a river of ink. What we do know is that the General was not persuaded by the arguments of Colonel and to get to the revision of the judgment delivered by a panel of seven officers needed overwhelming evidence against Esterhazy, evidence that at the time there weren't...

For the moment, the question seems archived but in early November explodes. At first Bernard Lazare published a pamphlet entitled Une erreur judiciaire. La verite sur l'Affaire Dreyfus, in which she argues that the captain and was sentenced on the basis of false evidence and the process needs to be redone. A few days later, as if it was a cleverly orchestrated maneuver, the two newspapers Le Matin and L'Eclair publish a facsimile of the bordereau. A few days later Colonel Picquart is sent on a mission in eastern France, then in the region of the Alps 'without returning to Paris' and finally moved permanently to South Africa to organize the Intelligence Services. His place is taken by Joseph Henry, meanwhile promoted lieutenant-colonel. Everything seems destined to run out of gasoline ... just do not taking into account the tenacity of Colonel Picquart. In June of 1897 he is on sick leave in Paris, the result of a fall from his horse. All taken from issues of conscience and convinced of the innocence of Captain Dreyfus, the Colonel decides to violate the regulations and reveal his friend Louis Leblois all the elements known to him that indicate greater Esterhazy as the author of the bordereau thing ... what will cause him the condemnation of the revelations of military secrets. The French general staff decides also, unfortunately for him, not to sit with folded hands. On October 16 General Gonse organizes a meeting by Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, his subordinate Captain Lauth and Major Du Paty de Clame. In the meeting are taken three crucial decisions: 'reinforce' as much as possible the prosecution against Captain Dreyfus, proceed against Colonel Picquart and ultimately protect Esterhazy. Regarding the first point it has never been clarified whether the orders given by General Gonse to Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, who in there just will not be able to more neither confirm nor deny anything, meant to collect all the material available on Captain Dreyfus, or even fabricate 'once again'. The fact is that a few days after Henry goes to the general wearing a voluminous dossier on Alfred Dreyfus. However, events hound with impressive speed. On 16 November, the Temps comes out with the news scoop: the author of the bordereau is the Major of infantry Count Walsin-Esterhazy. Mathieu Dreyfus, brother of the captain, on the advice of the lawyer Leblois, sent an open letter to the Minister of War General Billiot, which it published. Among other things, Mathieu wrote: '... the handwriting of Major Esterhazy and' identical to that of the offending document ... I do not doubt you, Mr. Minister, who will be ready to do justice ... '. The French General Staff must necessarily open an official inquiry that was entrusted to General Gabriel de Pellieux. Person with common sense, the general immediately suspected, probably rightly, that the petite blue is a fake and artfully packaged, surely rightly, that those who acted behind the scenes was the Colonel Picquart. Of course from here to be convinced of the guilt of Major Esterhazy it takes, but it should be noted that a figure really 'fair' in this whole affair does not exist. In order to properly judge the actions of General de Pellieux also must be said that three new experts in handwriting analysis, Couard, Verinard and Balhomme are engaged by him to verify the handwriting of Major Esterhazy's is the same of the author of the bordereau. Their response, which of course the Dreyfusards then they dismiss as 'shameful' and 'dictated by the military hierarchy', will be unanimous: '... there is no evidence to suggest that the document is the work of Esterhazy, but more written with the intention to imitate the handwriting ... '. On the other side of the fence the press, led by the prestigious Le Figaro, unleashed a violent campaign of defamation against the Major Esterhazy that culminated with the publication of the letters he wrote ten years ago to a former lover, Madame de Boulancy , in which he expressed all his contempt for France and his army. Although convinced of the innocence of Major Esterhazy, General de Pellieux has indicted the officer, particularly in order to protect the reputation of the French army. The process takes place January 10, 1897 in the same place he had seen the conviction of Alfred Dreyfus: the military court in the Rue Cherche-Midi. The process will last only one day. Given the 'consistency' of the arguments of the defense, based mainly on the evidence of experts in handwriting analysis, and the 'consistency' of the prosecution, based on the 'memories' of an ex-lover, the verdict is almost obvious: Major Esterhazy is acquitted...

The next morning, January 12 1898, Colonel Picquart is arrested and taken to the fortress of Mont Valerien. Subject of an investigation by the revelation of secrets, will be 'expelled in disgrace'. As acquitted, the career of Major Esterhazy is clearly compromised and, after being declared 'unfit for service' and dismissed, expatriates in England. January 13, 1898, the well-known 'intellectual' Emile Zola publishes on L'Aurore an 'open letter' addressed to the President of the Republic Félix Faure significantly entitled 'J'accuse! ...'. The content was a complaint in no uncertain terms to all those who were associated with the 'conspiracy against Dreyfus'. Two days after the weekly Le Temps published a petition for a new trial in Dreyfus signed by Emile Zola, Anatole France, the director of the Pasteur Institute Emile Duclaux, Daniel Halevy, Fernand Gregh, Felix Feleon, Marcel Proust, Lucien Herr, Charles Andrer Victor Berard, Francois Simiand, Georges Sorel, by the painter Claude Monet, the writer Jules Renard, the sociologist Emile Durkheim and the historic Gabriel Monod. It does not take long for Zola pluck the fruits of what he has sown. The Minister of War General brillot presents complaint against Zola and against the editor of L'Aurore Alexandre Perrenxe and the case against them will begin February 7 and ends on February 23. Zola is sentenced to one year in jail and a fine of 3,000 francs. He is appealing but before it is established he really wants to emigrate to England, where he will surely find a less hostile climate. For all other defendants convictions are confirmed and by Colonel Picquart particularly the doors of the prison are open again. It seems that in this matter you can put the word 'end' but, in the spirit of a Kafka novel, that's the fate inexorably reminds human beings that he and he alone has the final verdict...

Do not miss the next episodes! ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

 

[chisigma]

In May 1898, the elections take place in France and the new majority in parliament is 'trendy moderate'. The new minister of war, unlike those that preceded it, is a civil, Godefroy Cavagnac. Firmly convinced of the guilt of Dreyfus but also of absolute moral rigor, Cavagnac definitely wants to close the case before the public. On July 7, following a petition filed by the opposition Nationalist in which he asked what measures the Government intends to take in respect of the 'revisionists', Cavagnac is presented to the Chamber of Deputies exhibiting three documents from the 'secret dossier'. The first document mentions a certain 'Mr. D', the second 'that scoundrel of D.' and both were part of the original file of 1894. draws The third was added later by Colonel Henry and quotes Dreyfus in full. A few days later Colonel Picquart send a letter to the Prime Minister Brisson in which he states that the three documents that Cavagnac exhibited in parliament, two did not refer to Dreyfus and one 'has all the characteristics of the false'. Cavagnac at first goes on a rampage, but then regained his cool, order an additional investigation on the 'secret dossier', which after the 'added' ordered by General Conse and executed by Lieutenant-Colonel Henry has 365 documents against that there were only 4 in 1894. On the evening of August 13, the captain Cuignet, part of the staff of the ministry, while examining the light of a lamp on the third document Cavagnac has performed at the House of Representatives finds a unique and incredible anomaly: the color of the lines of the watermark in the top half of the document is not the same as the bottom half. In other words, it is a fake. Cavagnac, after several minutes of understandable confusion, order not to spread the news and to continue the examination of the file looking for other tampering. On August 29, the Ministry Cavagnac convene the General Boisdeffe and Conse and inform them of the discovery. Both the generals 'rain from the pear tree' and all you can do is go back the next day, taking the Colonel Henry, without first informing him of the fact that the false has been discovered. After an hour of exhausting interrogation Colonel Henry relents and claims have built false evidence against Dreyfus to obey the directives received from superiors. Cavagnac first order the immediate arrest of Colonel Henry which is transferred to two feet from the ministry to the fortress of Mont Valerien, where for weeks is locked up Colonel Picquart. Then informs of what the Prime Minister Brisson, which just goes to show there thinking to resign. During the night the tragedy comes the epilogue. The next morning the lifeless body of Colonel Henry is found within the cell where he had been imprisoned, three deep wounds in the throat razor. The coroner will support the hypothesis of suicide...

The tragic death of Colonel Henry induces Prime Minister Brisson a series of moves required. The first will be in a peremptory demand for the resignation of the generals Conse and Boisdeffe and the Minister of War Cavignac. The second to send the request to revise the Dreyfus trial in the Supreme Court. General Zurlinden, the successor of Cavignac, opposes so that he is replaced by General Chanonine. When he refuses to appear in the Chamber of Deputies and nobody is available to an interpellation of the opposition is the entire government to resign ... for the French army a defeat comparable only to that of 28 years before in Sedan!... On November 1 Brisson takes the place of the 'progressive' Charles Dupuy, who in 1894 had strongly supported the general Mercier in action against Dreyfus. Since then, four years have passed, the wind is changed, and without thinking too much Dupuy with equal conviction sided with the' revisionists'. On November 8 starts an investigation conducted by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court for review of the process. Over ninety witnesses are questioned, among them five former ministers of war. In December, the penal section requires the transmission of the papers of the two processes against Picquart and subsequently also the 'dossier Dreyfus'. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court declares admissible the request for review of the process and has new surveys. As part of these special 'safe-conduct' is granted to Major Esterhazy to go to France to testify. Before the Court of Cassation Esterhazy denies being the author of the bordereau but important new element, strengthen contacts with Colonel Schwartzkoppen stating that he had acted 'by order of the General Staff'. On March 31 the Court of Cassation resumed consideration of the trial of Dreyfus. After two months of interviews, surveys, comparisons and examinations June 3, 1899 the Court pronounced the verdict: the decision of 1894 against Dreyfus is canceled and the accused is postponed again to trial. Alfred Dreyfus in secret is slung on a cruiser and after more than four years back in France for men [temporarily] free and reinstated in grade. On 7 August 1899 opens in Rennes, capital of Brittany, the process of revision. During the hearings are over one hundred witnesses heard between the military and civilians. Although the appeals court has invalidated all the 'evidence' to load the accused manufactured after 1894, the defense fails in any way to diminish the evidence produced in the trial of five years earlier, in the first place expert calligrapher so that the final verdict is to take it for granted: Alfred Dreyfus is found guilty of treason albeit with 'extenuating circumstances' and is sentenced to ten years in prison, five of which are already discounted. Five of the seven judges who voted for guilty and two for not guilty...

At this point two paths are possible: the return of Dreyfus to Devil's Island to spend another five years of enjoyable stay while waiting for the request for a new review process to be examined or forwarding a request for clemency to the President of Republic, which, however, presupposes the recognition of the guilt of Dreyfus. Do you want because not too impressed by the beauty of the Island of the Devil, or because France has a great need to find social peace after years of civil war to the next situation, Dreyfus is convinced to take the second way. On 19 September 1899, the President Loubet, though with much hesitation, signed a decree granting clemency. Dreyfus was so 'rehabilitated', although more than anything else in observance of the needs of politic. Other two cases were still standing: the one against Picquart and one against Esterhazy. On 17 November 1900, the government, determined more than ever to put an end to the story, presents a proposal for a general amnesty law that parliament approves an overwhelming majority. The elections of 1902 saw the emergence of the left and the appointment of the Prime Minister of the Socialist Emile Combes, who among other things has never made ​​any secret of his anti-militarism. In a speech in parliament April 7 1903 the socialist leader Jaurés evokes all the 'falsehoods' that have polluted the trial of Dreyfus and, in order to restore the 'good repute army so severely compromised' calls for the reopening of the investigations. This appeal is greeted with enthusiasm by the new Minister of War, General Louis André, whose mentality reflected in all respects the 'secular nature' of government. The survey is conducted by Captain Targe, aide to the minister, and in 1903 the results are summarized in a report to the Minister of Justice. On the basis of this report a new in-depth investigation, so 'in-depth' to last for another two years, is initiated by the lawyer Ludovic Trarieaux,'mythical founder' of the League of Human Rights. Based on the results of this research, in 1905 the Supreme Court identified three reasons for revision: a) the falsification on the telegram Panizzardi, b) the date change on a document of 1895 was backdated to 1894, c) the fact that not has been proven that Dreyfus has taken documents relating to the artillery of the French army. It is obvious that with such 'reasons' a third trial before a military tribunal would have the same outcome of the previous two, so that the Supreme Court independently and without appeal July 12, 1906 to decide to decide the innocence of Captain Alfred Dreyfus ... and so, in purely political style, You put the final seal on this incredible story ...

These, though extremely summaries, the events ... now we will do our considerations ... do not miss it! ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

 

[chisigma]

Today, more than a hundred years later, during which the world has been completely turned over, the discussions also turned around to the Dreyfus affair still have not ended. If you want to look at the story from a non-biased point of view, many points remain obscure. If Dreyfus has not been, who was the traitor, Estherazy? ... The petite blue was a fake for take-out track on French counterintelligence? ... That can not be the whole affair has been crafted to cover some operation 'top secret'? ...

It is clear that an answer can not be given unless you examine the bordereau in a sort of DNA testing, and it is equally clear that for more than a century, the world's leading experts in graphology have dealt with the Dreyfus affair. I hope not to be accused of presumption if I now present the results of a handwriting analysis performed on a statistical basis that maybe can add something. First, I invite everyone to look carefully at the picture below ...

View attachment 2893

At the top is shown an handmade facsimile of the bordereau [the original has been lost during the Second World War ...], manuscript of 30 lines. At the bottom left a letter written by Dreyfus to his son, a manuscript of 18 lines. In the lower right a letter written by Esterhazy you do not know to whom and for what, a manuscript of 18 lines too. I don't know what Your first 'conclusion of instinct' and if it is the same one that I had. What I did is not taken into account prejudices and false impressions and proceed via 'mathematics'. A good idea for sure, but how? ... One possibility is given by the length measurement of the white spaces left between a word and the other, a characteristic 'psychological' which tends to be preserved even in case of writing deliberately altered or in the case of imitation of other writing. We call this random variable $\Lambda$. The Distributions of the statistical variable $\Lambda$ , normalized to the average length of the lines for the three illustrated manuscripts in the figure is shown here ...

View attachment 2894

The black curve refers to the bordereau, the red curve to the writing of Dreyfus, the cyan curve in the writing of Esterhazy. Before commenting on these results it would be extremely interesting to hear some feedback from you ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

 

[chisigma]

Since none of You have expressed observations, I will illustrate some of my opinions on the matter without entering the controversy with the distinguished historians that in the vast majority have long expressed their 'verdict': Esterhazy is the guilty. I will only say that the statistical analysis graphics and the results I showed You last post have confirmed the point of view that I already had earlier.For comfort wereport new statistical distributions of the handwriting of the bordereau (B), Dreyfus (D) and Esterhazy (E) …
View attachment 2931One thing immediately clear is that the average of the curve B and curve D is exactly the same: $\displaystyle \mu = 4.2\ 10^{-2}$. Different are the standard deviations: $\displaystyle \sigma= 2\ 10^{-2}$ for the curve B and $\displaystyle \sigma = 10^{-2}$ for the curve D. This instinctively suggests two possible hypotheses: 1) the bordereau is a work of Dreyfus 'uncertain' as psychologically affected by what he was doing [in practice it coincides with that hypothesis made ​​by Bertlillon ...], 2) the bordereau is the work of a forger who has imitated the handwriting of Dreyfus [hypothesis that as far as I know has not been made ​​by anyone until now ...]. As regards the curve E it differs too marked with the curve B, and this suggests that Esterhazy was not the author of the bordereau. These are my conclusions reflected exactly twenty years ago [when then thecentenary of the Dreyfus affair ...] when Jean Doise, a professor of history at the Sorbonne and former staff member of the French general staff, has made an interesting reconstruction of the story which allows us to at least understand how the diabolical machine of Intelligence works. Prerequisite is a brief description on the state of the art in the field artillery in the late nineteenth century. Compared to the artillery of the Napoleonic great strides had been made on the characteristics of guns and on characteristics of projectiles. With regard to the gun, a first significant progress had been made ​​with the adoption of the rifled barrel, with which it was possible to have a trajectory of the projectile more stable and consequently an increase of the reach and accuracy. More and more decisive steps forward had been made by the German industrialist Alfred Krupp. In the 'Great Exhibition' of 1851 first was exposed the Krupp cannon in the world made of cast steel, material of characteristics far superior to the bronze used up to that time. This is despite significant achievement was nevertheless supposed to be the premise to another realization even more 'revolutionary': the first reliable breech-loading guns, made time to attend the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The experience of that conflict, fought between two armies then cutting-edge technology in the world, had taught the 'war theorists' a truth that only the definitive affirmation of aviation will have to change: a relative parity of forces in the field, the outcome of a battle is in favor of those with better artillery and making better use of it. Having established that, as a logical consequence the growth of the 'destructive power' of artillery had become the absolute priority for European armies [and non...] in the last decades of the nineteenth century. And the 'destructive power' of a gun is also linked to the present day especially in the 'time factor', i.e. the time required to go from non-operational to operational status and the time that elapses in the operating state, once fired a shot, to bring the cannon in position, reload the gun, aim the cannon toward a new target and then fire a new shot. Well, the reduction of all these times was strictly conditioned by a law of physics known as the 'third law of motion', in obedience to which some of the energy of the explosion of propelling charge is transferred to the cannon itself and causes the 'recoil' , which is in essence a backward movement of the gun. In the absence of appropriate mechanisms to dissipate the energy of recoil, i.e. in all types of cannon used until then, it had been obliged to allow the entire complex muzzle + gun + carriage wheels move freely backwards and this is not only accounted heavily on the 'time factor', but made ​​it impossible to use the cannon on land not regular, otherwise the possible overturning of the gun itself. To significantly reduce the recoil was necessary to connect the gun to the gear not rigid , but rather by means of a braking device capable of dissipating the energy of the recoil. Possible brake devices were basically of two types: hydro-pneumatic or spring. The first had been tested, and due to significant mechanical stress during the spring, were subject to attrition which limited somewhat the operational life. The latter did not have these problems but their fluid nature requiring complex calculations to arrive at a prototype of adequate performance. And in the implementation of the hydro-pneumatic brake, the French arrived first sharply, then forcing all others to 'chase'. A first example of rapid-fire 52mm cannon that uses a hydro-pneumatic brake is made ​​in September 1892 from the arsenal of Bourges. Based on this result, the Director of the Inspectorate of Artillery, Major Joseph Albert Deport instructs to create a larger version of the prototype with 75mm caliber, a project that is designated by the conventional name of '75C'. A first prototype is tested at the beginning of 1893 with unsatisfactory outcomes. Changes are made, but other tests carried out in November 1893 and in May 1894 did not give better results. At this point the Minister of War, General Mercier of official state intervenes giving marching orders to Deport and assigning the project to the captains Saint Clare Deville and Émile Rimailho. They decide that the hydro-pneumatic brake must be completely redesigned and after two years of hard work the 'braking system II' is developed. In tests carried out in December 1896 the new gun reported increases beyond all expectations: 10,000 shots fired at a rate of 20 strokes per minute without a single incident. In a very short time it is launched series production. Everything in the new cannon was designed to get the most in terms of speed to put in battery and rate of fire, the containers of munitions to the latch of breech, ejector cartridge case and at the end of the barrel wedge that made the cannon completely integral with the ground after only two shots fired. In terms of performance the new French cannon made ​​obsolete all other guns in the world. The rate of fire was something unthinkable in those days. Used by a team of well-trained gunners will attain the 25-30 strokes per minute, at least five times higher than the best of what had been achieved up to that point, although this pace could not be sustained for a long time, both for the fatigue of men for both the overheating of the barrel. Even in terms of range the soixante-quinze mod. 1897 was not afraid of rivals: 11,000 meters, twice the number of competitors. The best proof of the absolute supremacy achieved by the soixante-quinze mod. 1897 in the history of artillery and 'date from his career to say the least' legendary '. In 1914, the soixante-quinze mod. 1897 will detect crucial to stop the Germans at the Marne. The superior characteristics of the soixante-quinze mod. 1897 convinced the Americans to equip their army with it not only during the First World War, but also in the next two decades. It happened so that after that in June 1940 the British had lost most of their artillery in France, the United States provided them as part of the 'Lend-Lease Act', 895 soixante-quinze mod. 1897 along with a million bullets and these will remain in service until 1945. For its part, the Wehrmacht will use a large number of soixante-quinze mod. 1897 captured in France in 1940, converted to the anti-tank role, against Russians T34 on the eastern front. To finish in the figure below You can see a cannon soixante-quinze modéle 1897 used to shoot the twenty shots in front of the Esplanade des Invalides in the inauguration of the presidency of François Holland... View attachment 2932
All this is very interesting but it is not clear yet how well the soixante-quinze mod. 1897 connects with the Dreyfus affair. The fact is that from the earliest stages of the project of '75C' they had been launched three other projects, called '75A','75B' and '75D' with the express purpose of deceiving the Germans and the parallel was organized by deuxieme bureau of Colonel Sandherr and Major Henry, and, that is the suggestion by Jean Doise, a complex transaction based on 'fake whistleblowers' and among them was also Major Esterhazy. The most spectacular success of this operation lies in the fact that it has been done to the Germans to believe that the project '75B' [a veritable 'mirror for larks'...] was going to be put into production and this has convinced Germans, who were also carrying out since 1891 a project of hydro-pneumatic brake that met the same difficulties encountered by the French, to enter into service in 1896 Feldkanone 7.7 FK 96 with rigid carriage, which from there to very little will be made ​​obsolete by the new French cannon.

This therefore is , roughly speaking, the reconstruction of the Dreyfus affair made ​​by Jean Doise: Captain Alfred Dreyfus was 'sacrificed' as 'excellent guilty' to cover a secret disinformation operation carried out by the deuxieme bureau through the Major Esterhazy in quality of 'double agent' maneuvered by Major Henry and Colonel Sandherr. Question obliged at this point: In the light of all the data now in our possession, we are able to arrive at a plausible conclusion? ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$