if the Axis[255] dominated it is evaded.
Those who want to struggle against Fascism are accused of being wholehearted defenders of capitalist "democracy." The fact that the rich everywhere tend to be pro-Fascist and the working class are nearly always anti-Fascist is hushed up.
It is tacitly pretended that the war is only between Britain and Germany. Mention of Russia and China,[256] and their fate if Fascism is permitted to win, is avoided. (You won't find one word about Russia or China in the three letters you sent to me.)
Now as to one or two points of fact which I must deal with if your correspondents' letters are to be printed in full.
industrial capitalism. This could not be said if Russia, the stronghold of world communism, and China, whose communist forces were on the verge of a successful revolution, were counted among Britain's allies in the fight against fascism.
My past and present. Mr Woodcock tries to discredit me by saying that (a) I once served in the Indian Imperial Police, (b) I have written articles for the Adelphi and was mixed up with the Trotskyists[257] in Spain, and (c) that I am at the BBC "conducting British propaganda to fox the Indian masses." With regard to (a), it is quite true that I served five years in the Indian Police. It is also true that I gave up that job, partly because it didn't suit me but mainly because I would not any longer be a servant of imperialism. I am against imperialism because I know something about it from the inside. The whole history of this is to be found in my writings, including a novel[258] which I think I can claim was a kind of prophecy of what happened this year in Burma. (b) Of course I have written for the Adelphi. Why not? I once wrote an article for a vegetarian paper. Does that make me a vegetarian? I was associated with the Trotskyists in Spain. It was chance that I was serving in the POUM[259] militia and not another, and I largely disagreed with the POUM "line" and told its leaders so freely, but when they were afterwards accused of pro-Fascist activities I defended them as best I could. How does this contradict my present anti-Hitler attitude? It is news to me that Trotskyists are either pacifists or pro- Fascists. (c) Does Mr Woodcock really know what kind of stuff I put out in the Indian broadcasts? He does not—though I would be quite glad to tell him about it. He is careful not to mention what other people are associated with these Indian broadcasts. . . . Most of our broadcasters are Indian left-wing intellectuals, from Liberals to Trotskyists, some of them bitterly anti-British. They don't do it to "fox the Indian masses" but because they know what a Fascist victory would mean to the chances of India's independence. Why not try to find out what I am doing before accusing my good faith?
"Mr Orwell is intellectual-hunting again' (Mr Comfort). I have never attacked "the 10 intellectuals" or "the intelligentsia" en bloc.[260] I have used a lot of ink and done myself a lot of harm by attacking the successive literary cliques which have infested this country, not because they were intellectuals but precisely because they were not what I mean by true intellectuals. The life of a clique is about five years and I have been writing long enough to see three of them come and two go—the Catholic gang, the Stalinist gang, and the present pacifist or, as they are sometimes nicknamed, Fascifist gang. My case against all of them is that they write mentally dishonest propaganda and degrade literary criticism to mutual arse-licking. But even with these various schools I would differentiate between individuals. I would never think of coupling
Joseph Stalin. The POUM followed Leon Trotsky, whom Stalin had exiled after a bitter power struggle. Orwell describes his association with the POUM in his memoir Homage to Catalonia. The power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky is the basis for his allegorical novel, Animal Farm. 9. En bloc: as a group.
Christopher Dawson with Arnold Lunn, or Malraux with Palme Dutt, or Max Plowman with the Duke of Bedford.[261] And even the work of one individual can exist at very different levels. For instance Mr Comfort himself wrote one poem I value greatly ("The Atoll in the Mind"), and I wish he would write more of them instead of lifeless propaganda tracts dressed up as novels. But this letter he has chosen to send you is a different matter. Instead of answering what I have said he tries to prejudice an audience to whom I am little known by a misrepresentation of my general line and sneers about my "status" in England. (A writer isn't judged by his "status," he is judged by his work.) That is on a par with "peace" propaganda which has to avoid mention of Hitler's invasion of Russia, and it is not what I mean by intellectual honesty. It is just because I do take the function of the intelligentsia seriously that I don't like the sneers, libels, parrot phrases and financially profitable back-scratching which flourish in our English literary world, and perhaps in yours also.
12 July 1942 London, England
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
What kind of case is Orwell making? Does he perceive his audience as supportive, hostile, lacking in information, partially supportive, or unconvinced about the importance of the issue? Support your answer by drawing from the text.
What does Orwell mean when he says that during World War II pacifism was "objectively pro-Fascist"? From what you know about this conflict, judge whether it would have been possible to oppose the use of force by one side (the Allies) without supporting the ideology of the other side (the Axis).
Why, according to Orwell, was pacifism not permitted in Germany and Japan during World War II?
What is the basis of Orwell's distinction between "'moral force'" and "physical force"? Which does he see as more desirable in World War II?
What arguments does Orwell characterize as "peace propaganda"? How is this related to "war propaganda"? What kinds of arguments might he see as the cornerstone of all kinds of propaganda?
a major French novelist with communist ties who eventually broke with Stalin and served in the French Resistance. Rajani Palme Dutt was the head of the British Communist Party and opposed Britain's entry into World War II. Max Plowman was a minor poet and a member of the Peace Pledge Union (PPU). The Duke of Bedford refers to Bertrand Russell, the great philosopher and mathematician, who was also a member of the PPU.
What mistaken notions about fascism does Orwell attribute to the peace movement?
Against what personal attacks does Orwell defend himself? Are his defenses necessary? Are they effective?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
Compare Orwell's insistence that pacifism is pro-facist with Erasmus's assertion that war destroys our humanity (p. 488). Would Orwell's argument support the idea that war sometimes prevents greater destruction from occurring? Does Orwell's argument support only defensive warfare? Or would it justify an offensive first strike? Why or why not?
How does Orwell's argument about pacifism compare with the just war theory advocated by Thomas Aquinas (p. 483)? Does his argument have religious overtones, or is it completely secular? Explain.
What beliefs about human nature are embedded in Orwell's argument? Would he agree with Hobbes (p. 94)? Do you believe that Orwell sees fascism as an extension of or as an aberration from human nature? Why?
How might Orwell's dismissal of "moral force" in this essay be reconciled with Martin Luther King Jr.'s very successful use of moral persuasion during the civil rights movement (p. 425)? What differences between the two situations allowed moral force to work in one and not the other?