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?
Orwell opens with a syllogism that equates pacifism to pro-fascism. Beyond stating the transparent, he attacks the motivations of his opponents and recounts personal experiences to not only add credit to his views, but highlight the cloistered lives his opponents live (Orwell beats this drum a few times). He finishes by defending himself and providing his motivations, which are nobler than his moralistic opponents.
I don’t get a good sense of how Orwell views his audience, other than by treating them like adults. He attacks the pacifists’ arguments directly and does not seem to be pandering to any particular group. He does take certain values for granted: fascism is bad and must be resisted. Outside of that his tone is respectful, but firm.
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).
He points out that if you hamper the efforts of the anti-fascist side, you de facto aid the pro-fascist side. I think this is right. The Axis powers killed innocent people who were passive, let alone passively resisting. Any arguments to the contrary are being willfully blind.
Why, according to Orwell, was pacifism not permitted in Germany and Japan during World War II?
As militant, fascist powers, pacifism is antithetical to their entire ideology.
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?
I interpret this to be recognition that moral compulsion does not have the same heft as the physical kind: one can simply ignore the former, but not the latter. This is especially true of fascist governments who make no pretense to being moral at all. In a war, such as WWII, it’s clear material force is what can win the day. Not moral posturing.
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?
Related to his earlier point, if pacifism is effectively pro-fascist, then by extension propaganda for peace creates the same effect as propaganda for war (just for the other side). Orwell is articulating what today might be called “dog whistle” rhetoric: his opponents defend their arguments as promoting peace, but actually only speak to those people who would prefer that the Axis powers succeed. As for what Orwell considers the basis of all propaganda, I cannot improve on this statement:
“…it concentrates on putting forward a “case,” obscuring the opponent’s point of view and avoiding awkward questions.”
What mistaken notions about fascism does Orwell attribute to the peace movement?
He lists five points that I won’t parrot here, but in essence pacifists obscure the lines between fascist and non-fascist so as to undermine the ethical imperative of the conflict.
Against what personal attacks does Orwell defend himself? Are his defenses necessary? Are they effective?
Orwell is accused of working for fascists, being part of fascist groups, and delivering propaganda for the British to India. These are strange accusations because they accuse Orwell of participating in, or sympathizing with, the very ideology he is calling to (militarily) resist. I’m not sure if his defending himself is necessary, but it sure doesn’t hurt. And for that matter I do think they’re effective: he easily disarms accusations of his sympathies and observes that his opponents are really not familiar with his work. The only area where I think Orwell is on thin ground is his writing for Adelphi. While writing for a vegetarian newspaper doesn’t make you a vegetarian, it does make you look chummy with them. (Unless of course Orwell was writing against the newspaper from within it, but he would have mentioned that if he had.)
No comments:
Post a Comment