"As I Please"
By: George Orwell
Tribune, 4 February 1944
When Sir Walter Raleigh was imprisoned in the Tower of London, he occupied himself with writing a history of the world.
He had finished the first volume and was at work on the second when there was a scuffle between some workmen beneath the window
of his cell, and one of the men was killed. In spite of diligent enquiries, and in spite of the fact that he had actually
seen the thing happen, Sir Walter was never able to discover what the quarrel was about; whereupon, so it is said -- and if
the story is not true it certainly ought to be -- he burned what he had written and abandoned his project.
This story has come into my head I do not know how many times during the past ten years, but always with the reflection
that Raleigh was probably wrong. Allowing for all the difficulties of research at that date, and the special difficulty of
conducting research in prison, he could probably have produced a world history which had some resemblance to the real course
of events. Up to a fairly recent date, the major events recorded in the history books probably happened. It is probably true
that the battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, that Columbus discovered America, that Henry VIII had six wives, and so on.
A certain degree of truthfulness was possible so long as it was admitted that a fact may be true even if you don't like it.
Even as late as the last war it was possible for the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, to compile its articles on the
various campaigns partly from German sources. Some of the facts -- the casualty figures, for instance -- were regarded as
neutral and in substance accepted by everybody. No such thing would be possible now. A Nazi and a non-Nazi version of the
present war would have no resemblance to one another, and which of them finally gets into the history books will be decided
not by evidential methods but on the battlefield.
During the Spanish civil war I found myself feeling very strongly that a true history of this war never would or could
be written. Accurate figures, objective accounts of what was happening, simply did not exist. And if I felt that even in 1937,
when the Spanish Government was still in being, and the lies which the various Republican factions were telling about each
other and about the enemy were relatively small ones, how does the case stand now? Even if Franco is overthrown, what kind
of records will the future historian have to go upon? And if Franco or anyone at all resembling him remains in power, the
history of the war will consist quite largely of "facts" which millions of people now living know to be lies. One of these
"facts," for instance, is that there was a considerable Russian army in Spain. There exists the most abundant evidence that
there was no such army. Yet if Franco remains in power, and if Fascism in general survives, that Russian army will go into
the history books and future school children will believe in it. So for practical purposes the lie will have become truth.
This kind of thing is happening all the time. Out of the milions of instances which must be available, I will choose one
which happens to be verifiable. During part of 1941 and 1942, when the Luftwaffe was busy in Russia, the German radio regaled
its home audiences with stories of devestating air raids on London. Now, we are aware that those raids did not happen. But
what use would our knowledge be if the Germans conquered Britain? For the purposes of a future historian, did those raids
happen, or didn't they? The answer is: If Hitler survives, they happened, and if he falls they didn't happen. So with innumerable
other events of the past ten or twenty years. Is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a genuine document? Did Trotsky plot
with the Nazis? How many German aeroplanes were shot down in the Battle of Britain? Does Europe welcome the New Order? In
no case do you get one answer which is universally accepted because it is true: in each case you get a number of totally incompatible
answers, one of which is finally adopted as the result of a physical struggle. History is written by the winners.
In the last analysis our only claim to victory is that if we win the war we shall tell fewer lies about it than our adversaries.
The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits "atrocities" but that it attacks the concept of
objective truth; it claims to control the past as well as the future. In spite of all the lying and self-righteousness that
war encourages, I do not honestly think it can be said that that habit of mind is growing in Britain. Taking one thing with
another, I should say that the press is slightly freer than it was before the war. I know out of my own experience that you
can print things now which you couldn't print ten years ago. War resisters have probably been less maltreated in this war
than in the last one, and the expression of unpopular opinion in public is certainly safer. There is some hope, therefore,
that the liberal habit of mind, which thinks of truth as something outside yourself, something to be discovered, and not as
something you can make up as you go along, will survive. But I still don't envy the future historian's job. Is it not a strange
commentary on our time that even the casualties in the present war cannot be estimated within several millions?
by George Orwell
Partisan Review, Winter 1945
So far as I can see, all political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future
only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. For
example, right up to May of this year the more disaffected English intellectuals refused to believe that a Second Front would
be opened. They went on refusing while, bang in front of their faces, the endless convoys of guns and landing-craft rumbled
through London on their way to the coast. One could point to countless other instances of people hugging quite manifest delusions
because the truth would be wounding to their pride. Hence the absence of reliable political prediction. To name just one easily
isolated example: who foresaw the Russo-German pact of 1939? A few pessimistic Conservatives foretold an agreement between
Germany and Russia, but the wrong kind of agreement, and for the wrong reasons. So far as I am aware, no intellectual of the
Left, whether russophile or russophobe, foresaw anything of the kind. For that matter, the Left as a whole failed to foresee
the rise of Fascism and failed to grasp that the Nazis were dangerous even when they were on the verge of seizing power. To
appreciate the danger of Fascism the Left would have had to admit its own shortcomings, which was too painful; so the whole
phenomenon was ignored or misinterpreted, with disastrous results.
The most one can say is that people can be fairly good prophets when their wishes are realizable. But a truly objective
approach is almost impossible, because in one form or another almost everyone is a nationalist... The most intelligent people seem capable of holding schizophrenic beliefs, or disregarding plain facts, of evading serious
questions with debating-society repartees, or swallowing baseless rumours and of looking on indifferently while history is
falsified. All these mental vices spring ultimately from the nationalistic habit of mind, which is itself, I suppose, the
product of fear and of the ghastly emptiness of machine civilization....
I believe that it is possible to be more objective than most of us are, but that it involves a moral effort. One cannot
get away from one's own subjective feelings, but at least one can know what they are and make allowance for them.
"As I Please"
Tribune, 14 July 1944
I have received a number of letters, some of them quite violent ones, attacking me for my remarks on Miss Vera Brittain's
anti-bombing pamphlet. There are two points that seem to need further comment.
First of all there is the charge, which is becoming quite a common one, that "we started it," i.e. that Britain was the
first country to practise systematic bombing of civilians. How anyone can make this claim, with the history of the past dozen
years in mind, is almost beyond me. The first act in the present war -- some hours, if I remember rightly, before any declaration
of war passed -- was the German bombing of Warsaw. The Germans bombed and shelled the city so intensively that, according
to the Poles, at one time 700 fires were raging simultaneously. They made a film of the destruction of Warsaw, which they
entitled "Baptism of Fire" and sent all round the world with the object of terrorising neutrals.
Several years earlier than this the Condor Legion, sent to Spain by Hitler, had bombed one Spanish city after another.
The "silent raids" on Barcelona in 1938 killed several thousand people in a couple of days. Earlier than this the Italians
had bombed entirely defenseless Abyssinians and boasted of their exploites as something screamingly funny. Bruno Mussolini
wrote newspaper articles in which he described bombed Abyssinians "bursting open like a rose," which he said was "most amusing."
And the Japanese ever since 1931, and intensively since 1937, have been bombing crowded Chinese cities where there are not
even any ARP arrangements, let alone any AA guns or fighter aircraft.
I am not arguing that two blacks make a white, nor that Britain's record is a particularly good one. In a number of "little
wars" from about 1920 onwards the RAF has dropped its bombs on Afghans, Indians and Arabs who had little or no power of hitting
back. But it is simply untruthful to say that large-scale bombing of crowded town areas, with the object of causing panic,
is a British invention. It was the Fascist states who started this practice, and so long as the air war went in their favour
they avowed their aims quite clearly.
The other thing that needs dealing with is the parrot cry "killing women and children." I pointed out before, but evidently
it needs repeating, that it is probably somewhat better to kill a cross-section of the population than to kill only the young
men. If the figures published by the Germans are true, and we have really killed 1,200,000 civilians in our raids, that loss
of life has probably harmed the German race somewhat less than a corresponding loss on the Russian front or in Africa and
Any nation at war will do its best to protect its children, and the number of children killed in raids probably does not
correspond to their percentage of the general population. Women cannot be protected to the same extent, but the outcry against
killing women, if you accept killing at all, is sheer sentimentality. Why is it worse to kill a woman than a man? The argument
usually advanced is that in killing women you are killing the breeders, whereas men can be more easily spared. But this is
a fallacy based on the notion that human beings can be bred like animals. The idea behind it is that since one man is capable
of fertilizing a very large number of women, just as a prize ram fertilizes thousands of ewes, the loss of male lives is comparatively
unimportant. Human beings, however, are not cattle. When the slaughter caused by war leaves a surplus of women, the enormous
majority of those women bear no children. Male lives are very nearly as important, biologically, as female ones.
In the last war the British Empire lost nearly a million men killed, of whome abou;three-quarters came from these islands.
Most of them will have been under thirty. If all those young men had had only one child each whe should now have en extra
750,000 people round about the age of twenty. France, which lost much more heavily, never recovered from the slaughter of
the last war, and it is doubtful whether Britain has fully recovered, either. We can't yet calculate the casualties of the
present war, but the last one killed between ten and twenty million young men. Had it been conducted, as the next one will
perhaps be, with flying bombs, rockets and other long-range weapons which kill old and young, healthy and unhealthy, male
and female impartially, it would probably have damaged European civilization somewhat less than it did.
Contrary to what some of my correspondents seem to think, I have no enthusiasm for air raids, either ours or the enemy's.
Like a lot of other people in this country, I am growing definitely tired of bombs. But I do object to the hypocrisy of accepting
force as an instrument while squealing against this or that individual weapon, or of denouncing war while wanting to preserve
the kind of soceity that makes war inevitable.