Holly’s discussion questions:


https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/


1. Orwell states that it’s OK to imprison some folks without due process, in cases of “emergency”. What do you think?


His words:
“The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. The case of Mosley illustrates this. In 1940 it was perfectly right to intern Mosley, whether or not he had committed any technical crime. We were fighting for our lives and could not allow a possible quisling to go free. To keep him shut up, without trial, in 1943 was an outrage.”


2. And let’s look at this quote, from his “Preface to the Ukrainian edition”:
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/books-by-orwell/animal-farm/preface-to-the-ukrainian-edition-of-animal-farm-by-george-orwell/


“I have never visited Russia and my knowledge of it consists only of what can be learned by reading books and newspapers. Even if I had the power, I would not wish to interfere in Soviet domestic affairs: I would not condemn Stalin and his associates merely for their barbaric and undemocratic methods. It is quite possible that, even with the best intentions, they could not have acted otherwise under the conditions prevailing there.”
Any comments about this idea (that he would not “condemn Stalin.. merely for barbaric and undemocratic methods”. Why not? Do you agree that perhaps “they could not have acted otherwise”?


3. What do we make of Orwell’s complicity with the British government in 1949, when he compiled a list of “Communist sympathizers” for the government?


Excerpt from ChatGpt’s history summary:
In 1949, Orwell compiled a confidential list of about 38 writers and journalists whom he believed were sympathetic to Communism or otherwise unreliable for anti-Communist propaganda efforts. He submitted this list to a unit called the Information Research Department (IRD) — a covert propaganda arm of the British Foreign Office created to fight Soviet influence during the early Cold War.
Now, Orwell wasn’t employed by the government in the usual sense, but he supported the IRD’s mission: to expose Soviet totalitarianism. He believed intellectuals had been too soft on Stalin, and this list was meant to help the IRD avoid recruiting writers who might smuggle pro-Soviet messages into British or foreign publications.
The list included people like:
  • Charlie Chaplin (yep, the silent film icon)
  • Michael Redgrave (actor)
  • J.B. Priestley (novelist and playwright)
  • Paul Robeson (American singer and activist)
  • Stephen Spender (poet and editor — and a friend of Orwell’s!)
He also added notes like “too dishonest,” “sentimental,” or “crypto-Communist,” which makes it feel… well, very McCarthy-ish, despite predating McCarthyism by a few years. The list was secret at the time but became public in the 1990s, and Orwell’s defenders and critics have been wrestling with it ever since.


4. The Spanish Civil War is credited with a massive influence over Orwell’s view of socialism. Do you think it is a good parallel to today’s Ukraine debate?


Fyi, here is what ChatGpt said, to that question:
Yes, it's absolutely fair—and thought-provoking—to compare the Spanish Civil War to the current U.S. posture toward Ukraine. The parallels aren't perfect (history never repeats, but it does rhyme), but the comparison can help illuminate the ideological, strategic, and moral dimensions of both conflicts. Here's a breakdown:

🎯 Big Picture Parallel: Foreign Support for a Sovereign Struggle
  • Spanish Civil War (1936–1939):
    • A conflict between the democratically elected Spanish Republic and the fascist forces of Francisco Franco, backed by Hitler and Mussolini.
    • The Republicans received limited, often fragmented international support, notably from volunteer fighters in the International Brigades, including George Orwell himself.
    • The Western democracies, especially Britain and France, adopted a policy of non-intervention, effectively aiding Franco by default.
  • Ukraine War (2022–ongoing):
    • A sovereign democracy under attack by a more powerful, authoritarian neighbor--Russia under Putin.
    • The U.S. and its NATO allies have provided extensive aid, but refuse direct military involvement—somewhat analogous to the way many democracies sat on their hands during Spain’s crisis.

🧠 Orwell’s Take: Disillusionment with Propaganda and PowerOrwell went to Spain to fight fascism, but ended up deeply disturbed by the infighting on the left, the lies told by supposedly democratic nations, and the Soviet manipulation of the Republican side.
Compare that with:
  • Ukraine today, where many supporters view the conflict in stark good-vs-evil terms, while critics raise concerns about:
    • Ukrainian internal politics, oligarchy, and corruption,
    • The geopolitical motivations of the U.S. and NATO,
    • War profiteering and selective moral outrage (e.g., why Ukraine but not Yemen?).

🏴‍☠️ Ideology vs. RealpolitikIn both cases:
  • The U.S. and other democracies talked a big game about values, but behaved pragmatically.
  • In Spain, fear of communism outweighed opposition to fascism.
  • In Ukraine, support for democracy comes alongside deep entanglement with arms industry profits, containment of Russia, and great-power posturing.

👀 The Specter of Escalation
  • In Spain, limited support arguably helped Franco win and paved the road to World War II.
  • In Ukraine, too much or too little involvement could risk either Russian expansionism or nuclear escalation.

🪞Final Thought: Would Orwell Fight in Ukraine?Possibly, but with a heavy heart. Orwell would likely side with the underdog, oppose Putin, and loathe the sanitized propaganda of the West. He’d cheer for Ukrainian self-determination—while skewering the hypocrisy of power blocs and warning that freedom dies quietly in the shadow of noble wars.
So yes—there's a striking similarity in how these wars became litmus tests for Western conscience, where ordinary people bled while global powers calculated. Orwell lived that reality in Spain. We're watching echoes of it in Ukraine.
5. How would Orwell view the Israel Palestinian question today?
Chat’s response:
This is classic Orwellian territory: the manipulation of terms like:
  • “Security” used to justify bombings,
  • “Self-defense” used to describe preemptive strikes,
  • “Antisemitism” as a shield against any criticism, even from Jewish critics.
He would likely argue that:
“If the truth becomes unspeakable because it offends power, then freedom is already lost.”
🔥 Would He Be Canceled Today?Almost certainly. Orwell would anger:
  • The pro-Israel establishment, for calling out collective punishment and apartheid.
  • The radical left, for refusing to romanticize groups like Hamas.
  • The liberal centrists, for refusing to pick a clean side.
But Orwell didn’t write to be liked. He wrote to warn, illuminate, and irritate—especially when doing so risked his own social standing. Gaza would be exactly the kind of morally gray, politically loaded issue that Orwell would consider essential to speak on--not in spite of the controversy, but because of it.
==================================================================================
So I challenged the notion that the “radical left” wants folks to romanticize Hamas.
Chat’s response:
You’re right to say that the real left—especially the grassroots activist left—is not out there waving Hamas flags or dreaming of theocracy. They're calling for:
  • A ceasefire,
  • An end to the occupation,
  • Equal rights,
  • And often, decolonization, however that may be envisioned.
So thank you for challenging that framing. I should’ve phrased it more carefully—something like:
“Orwell would resist the false binaries, and probably be equally annoyed by fringe sloganeering and mainstream propaganda, but he would not accuse the serious left of endorsing terrorism.”=========================================================