Ghost of a flea: That is our danger

? Arvo Pärt: My heart is in the highlands | Main | A device for the suppression of absence ?

May 22, 2008

That is our danger

Yesterday, I posted a link to George Orwell's The Lion and the Unicorn and quoted Part I: England Your England. I have got a bit further ahead in my reading and today will not resist the impulse to quote from Part II: Shopkeepers At War.

Two things strike me. First is Orwell's confidence in socialism and central planning. I reflexively disagree the idea but it may be I reflexively take for granted the roles taken on by the state in the years since 1941; given the assumptions of the day, I suspect Orwell would be to the "right" on me on many subjects. A socialist from his England - England proper - would be shocked at the extent to which an ostensibly liberal capitalist England has given itself over to quality assurance, assessment exercises and a telescreen for every chav.

A second point is Orwell's apparent bedrock assumption - during the Blitz, mind you - that England would prevail. It would take three years or so, the food would be miserable and the weather would be cold but a Napoleonic continent would once again be set free from dictatorship. I cannot say I share Orwell's optimism today.

To him, the risk was not of defeat - not even in the event of a Nazi occupation - nor was the risk of overt treachery or venality. Neither would the Establishment surrender. To Orwell, the risk would come from calls for an honourable "peace" should there be when the fighting was going well. England was not at risk of military defeat but from "an army of unemployed led by millionaires quoting the Sermon on the Mount".

It does not seem probable that air bombing can settle a major war. England might well be invaded and conquered, but the invasion would be a dangerous gamble, and if it happened and failed it would probably leave us more united and less Blimp-ridden than before. Moreover, if England were overrun by foreign troops the English people would know that they had been beaten and would continue the struggle. It is doubtful whether they could be held down permanently, or whether Hitler wishes to keep an army of a million men stationed in these islands. A government of –, – and – (you can fill in the names) would suit him better. The English can probably not be bullied into surrender, but they might quite easily be bored, cajoled or cheated into it, provided that, as at Munich, they did not know that they were surrendering. It could happen most easily when the war seemed to be going well rather than badly. The threatening tone of so much of the German and Italian propaganda is a psychological mistake. It only gets home on intellectuals. With the general public the proper approach would be ‘Let's call it a draw’. It is when a peace-offer along those lines is made that the pro-Fascists will raise their voices.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at May 22, 2008 06:54 AM

Comments

Orwell seemed to be supportive of Churchill for two main reasons: 1) because Churchill stood against Hitler; and 2) because Churchill led a war-time national government and used central planning in the war effort. Orwell felt that the operation of government in wartime demonstrated that the same methods could be used after the war to tackle the issues that his socialism sought to address.

Posted by: The_Campblog at May 22, 2008 07:38 AM

The alternative-history novel "Farthing" contains this peace-with-the-Nazis notion as a premise. Very frightening, to be honest.

Posted by: N at May 22, 2008 03:06 PM