Yesterday I went to visit George Orwell, who is in a sanatorium in Gloucestershire. I discussed some aspects of our work with him in great confidence, and he was delighted to learn of them, and expressed his wholehearted and enthusiastic approval of our aims. He said that he could not agree to write an article himself at present, or even to re-write one, because he is too ill to undertake any literary work at all; also because he does not like to write 'on commission', as he feels he does not do his best work that way. However I left some material with him, and shall send him photostats of some of his articles on the theme of Soviet repression of the arts, in the hope that he may become inspired when he is better to take them up again.
He suggested various names of writers who might be enlisted to write for us, and promised to think of more in due course and to communicate them to us. The ones he thought of while I was there were:-
D'Arcy Gillie, the Manchester Guardian Paris correspondent, who he says is a serious opponent of Communism, and an expert on Poland as well as on French politics; C. D. Darlington,*1 the scientist. Mr Orwell considers that the Lysenko case should be fully documented, and suggested that Darlington might undertake this; Franz Borkenau, the German professor, who wrote a History of the Comintern, and has also written some articles recently in the Observer.2
Mr Orwell said that undoubtedly Gollancz would be the man to publish such a series of books as we had in mind. He would have been very willing to act as a go-between if he had been well enough; as it was, he would try to think of someone else who would do so, and he suggested that a glance at a list of Gollancz writers would probably recall to our minds someone who would be able to help us. He says, however, that Gollancz has a one-track mind, and at present it is running along the track of Arab refugees, so it might be a good plan to allow him to get these out of his system before trying to interest him in our plan. He said that Gollancz books always sell well, and that they are well displayed and given the widest publicity.
As Mr Orwell was for twodeg years in the Indian Police stationed in Burma, and as he ran a B.B.C. service to the Indians during the war, I asked him what in his view would be the best way of furthering our aims in India and Burma. He said that whatever was the best way, the worst was undoubtedly broadcasting, since hardly any of the natives had radio sets, and those who did (who were mostly Eurasians) tended only to listen in to local stations. He thought that one plane-load of leaflets probably did more good than six months broadcasting.
Indeed he did not think that there was a great deal of scope for propaganda in India and Pakistan, where Communism meant something quite different from what it did in Europe--it meant, on [t]he whole, opposition to the ruling class, and he thought that more good would be done by maintaining the closest possible links with these countries, through trade and through the interchange of students. He thought this latter aspect of Anglo-Indian relations very important, and was of the opinion that we ought to offer far more scholarships to Indian and Pakistandeg students.
In Burma, he thought that propaganda should avoid 'atrocity' stories, since the Burmese were 'rather apt to admire that kind of thing', or, if they did not actually admire it, to think 'If that's what the Communists are like, better not oppose them.'
Incidentally, he said that the Commander Young,3 whose wife committed suicide the other day, is a Communist, and is the Naval equivalent, on a more modest scale, of the Archbishop of Canterbury 4--that is, he is called in to confirm the Soviet point of view about matters relating to the Navy. Also, his wife was a Czech; and Mr Orwell wonders whether there is any connection between these two facts and Mrs Young's suicide.
[XX, 3590A, pp. 318-21]
1.See 19.3.47.
2.For Franz Borkenau, see 31.7.37, n. 3.
3.Orwell included Cdr. Edgar P. Young in his list of crypto-communists. He wrote, 'Naval expert. Pamphlets'; under 'Remarks', 'F. T.? Active in People's Convention. Quite possibly an underground member I should think. Wife (Czech) committed suicide (in slightly doubtful circumstances) 1949.' Mrs Ida Young was found hanged in their flat on 23 March 1949.
4.'Archbishop' has been mistakenly written for Dean Hewlett-Johnson, the 'Red Dean'.
To Sir Richard Rees*
31 March 1949
Cranham
Dear Richard,
Thanks so much for your letter. I send herewith a copy of P[artisan] R[eview] with the article I spoke of.1 I'd have sent it before, as I thought it would interest you, but I was under the impression that you took in PR. Celia Kirwan was here the other day & she will send me a copy of that number of Polemic which I lost & which has the essay on Tolstoy in it. It really connects up with the Gandhi article.
Yes, I must get this will business sewn up. I had my will properly drawn up by a solicitor, then, as I wanted to make some alterations, re-wrote it myself, & I dare say this second draft, though duly witnessed etc., is not legal. Have you got a solicitor in Edinburgh? I am out of touch with my London ones. It is important to get the literary executorship sewn up properly, & also to be quite sure about Richard's position, because there is some legal difference, I forget what, in the case of an adopted child. In addition I must bring up to date the notes I left for you about my books, which editions to follow, etc. When Avril came back from town she brought some box files marked 'Personal' which I think have all the relevant stuff in them. Do you think when you are at Barnhill you could go through these files & send the relevant papers to me. I want my will, ie. the second will, dated about the beginning of 1947 I think, the notes I left for you, & a notebook marked 'Reprintable Essays'2 which wants bringing up to date. It's important that your powers should be made clear, ie. that you should have the final say when any definitely literary question is involved. For example. The American Book of the Month people, though they didn't actually promise, half promised to select my present book if I would cut out about a quarter of it. Of course I'm not going to do this, but if I had died the week before, Moore & the American publishers would have jumped at the offer, ruining the book & not even benefiting my estate much, because whenever you make a large sum you are in the surtax class & it is all taken away again.
I have been very poorly, spitting up quantities of blood. This doesn't necessarily do any harm, indeed Morlock, the specialist I went to before the war, said it might even do good, but it always depresses & disgusts me, & I have been feeling rather down. There is evidently nothing very definite they can do for me. They talked of doing the 'thora' operation, but the surgeon wouldn't undertake it because you have to have one sound lung which I haven't. Evidently the only thing to do is to keep quiet. It worries me not to see little R., but perhaps later I can arrange somehow for him to visit me. If I do get up this year I want to take him for a trip to London.
Yours
Eric
Excuse this writing. They've forbidden me to use a typewriter at present because it is tiring!
[XX, 3584, pp. 73-4; handwritten]
1.'Reflections on Gandhi' (see XX, 3516, pp. 5-12).
2.See XX, 3728, pp. 223-31, which includes a section on 'Reprintable Essays'.
Orwell's letter to Celia Kirwan, which follows, should be read in the context of what the Information Research Department was seeking: those who might reliably represent British interests in writing on its behalf to counteract Soviet propaganda designed to undermine democratic institutions. The copious notes and annotations relevant to this letter will be found in XX, 3590B, pp. 323-7.
To Celia Kirwan*
6 April 1949
Cranham
Dear Celia,
I haven't written earlier because I have really been rather poorly, & I can't use the typewriter even now, so I hope you will be able to cope with my handwriting.
I couldn't think of any more names to add to your possible list of writers except FRANZ BORKENAU (the Observer would know his address) whose name I think I gave you, & GLEB STRUVE* (he's at Pasadena in California at present), the Russian translator and critic. Of course there a
re hordes of Americans, whose names can be found in the (New York) New Leader, the Jewish monthly paper Commentary, & the Partisan Review. I could also, if it is of any value, give you a list of journalists & writers who in my opinion are crypto-Communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way & should not be trusted as propagandists. But for that I shall have to send for a notebook which I have at home, & if I do give you such a list it is strictly confidential, as I imagine it is libellous to describe somebody as a fellow-traveller.1
Just one idea occurred to me for propaganda not abroad but in this country. A friend of mine in Stockholm2 tells me that as the Swedes don't make many films of their own one sees a lot of German & Russian films, & some of the Russian films, which of course would not normally reach this country, are unbelievably scurrilous anti-British propaganda. He referred especi[ally] to a historical film about the Crimean war. As the Swedes can get hold of these films I suppose we can: might it not be a good idea to have showings of some of them in this country, particularly for the benefit of the intelligentsia?
I read the enclosed article3 with interest, but it seems to me anti-religious rather than anti-semitic. For what my opinion is worth, I don't think anti-anti-semitism is a strong card to play in anti-Russian propaganda. The USSR must in practice be somewhat anti-semitic, as it is opposed both to Zionism within its own borders & on the other hand to the liberalism and internationalism of the non-Zionist Jews, but a polyglot state of that kind can never be officially anti-semitic, in the Nazi manner, just as the British Empire cannot. If you try to tie up Communism and anti-semitism, it is always possible in reply to point to people like Kaganovich 4 or Annadeg Pauker,5 also to the large number of Jews in the Communist parties everywhere. I also think it is bad policy to try to curry favour with your enemies. The Zionist Jews everywhere hate us & regard Britain as the enemy, more even than Germany. Of course this is based on misunderstanding, but as long as it is so I do not think we do ourselves any good by denouncing anti-semitism in other nations.
I am sorry I can't write a better letter, but I really have felt so lousy the last few days. Perhaps a bit later I'll get some ideas.
With love
George
[Postscript] I did suggest DARCY GILLY,deg (Manchester Guardian) didn't I? There is also a man called CHOLLERTON (expert on the Moscow trials) who could be contacted through the Observer.6
[XX, 3590B, pp. 322-7; handwritten]
1.Orwell's Lists of Crypto-Communists and Fellow-Travellers are to be found in XX, 3732, pp. 240-59; supplemented in LO, pp. 149-51; and in LO, pp.140-9 is the list of names Orwell sent to Celia Kirwan, 2 May 1949. Orwell wrote that the list wasn't very sensational but 'it isn't a bad idea to have the people who are probably unreliable listed'. There is a very serious aspect to the list. It includes, for example, two on the NKVD payroll (Tom Driberg, Labour MP (codename 'Lepage') and Peter Smollet, OBE (= Smolka, codename 'Abo' and probably the man who persuaded Cape not to publish Animal Farm). There is also a jokey element - Orwell's income tax inspector is listed. The project has raised considerable comment, some unfavourable, some ill-informed.
2.Michael Meyer.*
3.Not identified.
4.Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich (1893-1991), a Jew, originally a shoemaker, who became Secretary of the Central Committeee of the Commuist Party. He managed the Soviet Union's transport system during the war.
5.Ana Pauker (1894-1960), daughter of a Jewish butcher, spent some time in the USA, served as a Colonel in the Red Army and became a leader of the Romanian Communist Party when the Soviets occupied Romania in 1944.
6.Darsie Gillie, the Guardian's Paris correspondent, told Adam Watson (one of Celia's colleagues) that Chollerton was 'an expert on Russia, & would be useful in various ways'. A.T. Chollerton was the Daily Telegraph's correspondent in Moscow in 1939 when the Soviet Union was in alliance with Germany.
To Sir Richard Rees*
8 April 1949
Cranham
Dear Richard,
I thought you'd all like to know that I have just had a cable saying that the Book of the Month Club have selected my novel after all, in spite of my refusing to make the changes they demanded. So that shows that virtue is its own reward, or honesty is the best policy, I forget which. I don't know whether I shall ultimately end up with a net profit, but at any rate this should pay off my arrears of income tax.
I've had the sanatorium cable the magazines to which I had promised articles saying I am unfit to do any work, which is the truth. Don't depress the others too much with this, but the fact is I am in a bad way at present. They are going to try streptomycin again, which I had previously urged them to do & which Mr Dick* thought might be a good idea. They had been afraid of it because of the secondary effects, but they now say they can offset these to some extent with nicotine, or something, & in any case they can always stop if the results are too bad. If things go badly--of course we'll hope they won't, but one must be prepared for the worst--I'll ask you to bring little Richard to see me before I get too frightening in appearance. I think it would upset you less than it would Avril, & there may be business deals to talk over as well. If the stuff works, as it seemed to do last time, I shall take care this time to keep the improvement by leading an invalid life for the rest of the year.
I forgot to say, I wish some time you'd have a look at my books & see they're not getting too mildewy (I asked Avril to light a fire from time to time for that reason) & that the magazines in the bottom shelf are in some sort of order. I want to keep all the magazines that are there, as some of them have articles of mine that I might want to reprint. The books are piling up here & I'm going to start sending them home some time, but I can't do up parcels at present.
Love to all
Eric
[XX, 3594, pp. 82-3; handwritten]
To Tosco Fyvel*
Fyvel lost the original of this letter after most of it had been printed in Encounter, January 1962. It is reproduced here as printed in Encounter.
15 April 1949
[The Cotswold Sanatorium]
Cranham
Dear Tosco,
Thanks so much for sending Ruth Fischer's book.1 I had intended buying it, but perhaps after reading a borrowed copy I shan't need to. I'll see you get it back. I read Margarete Neumann's book2 with some interest. It wasn't a particularly good book but she struck me as a sincere person. Gollancz also has a quite remarkable novel about the forced-labour camps coming along, by someone calling himself pseudonymously 'Richard Cargoe' 3--a Pole I should say--how authentic I couldn't be sure, but quite a striking book, in the Slav manner.
There were several points in your articles that I had been meaning to take up with you. One is about Graham Greene. You keep referring to him as an extreme Conservative, the usual Catholic reactionary type. This isn't so at all, either in his books or privately. Of course he is a Catholic and in some issues has to take sides politically with the church, but in outlook he is just a mild Left with faint CP leanings. I have even thought that he might become our first Catholic fellow-traveller, a thing that doesn't exist in England but does in France, etc. If you look at books like A Gun for Sale, England Made Me, The Confidential Agent and others, you will see that there is the usual left-wing scenery. The bad men are millionaires, armaments manufacturers etc., and the good man is sometimes a Communist. In his last book there is also the usual inverted colour-feeling. According to Rayner Heppenstall, Greene somewhat reluctantly supported Franco during the Spanish civil war, but The Confidential Agent is written from the other point of view.
The other thing is that you are always attacking novelists for not writing about the contemporary scene. But can you think of a novel that ever was written about the strictly contemporary scene? It is very unlikely that any novel, i.e. worth reading, would ever be set back less than three years at least. If you tried, in 1949, to write a novel about 1949 it would simply be 'reportage' and probably would seem out of date and silly before you could get it into print.
I have a novel dealing with 1945 in my head now, but even if I survive to write it I shouldn't touch it before 1950.4 The reason is not only that one can't see the events of the moment in perspective, but also that a novel has to be lived with for years before it can be written down, otherwise the working-out of detail, which takes an immense time and can only be done at odd moments, can't happen. This is my experience and I think it is also other people's. I have sometimes written a so-called novel within about two years of the original conception, but then they were always weak, silly books which I afterwards suppressed. You may remember that nearly all the worth-while books about the 1914 war appeared 5, 10 or even more years after it was over, which was when one might have expected them. I think books about the late war are about due to appear now, and books about the immediate post-war at some time in the fifties.
I've been horribly ill the last few weeks. I had a bit of a relapse, then they decided to have another go with streptomycin, which previously did me a lot of good, at least temporarily. This time only one dose of it had ghastly results, as I suppose I had built up an allergy or something. I'm a bit better now, however, but I can't work and don't know when I shall be able to. I've no hope of getting out of here before the late summer. If the weather is good I might then get up to Scotland for a few weeks, but not more, and then I shall have to spend the autumn and winter somewhere near a doctor, perhaps even in some kind of residential sanatorium. I can't make plans till my health takes a more definite turn one way or the other. Richard is blooming, or was when I last saw him. He will be five in May. I think he will go to the village school this winter, but next year I shall have to remove him to the mainland so that he can go to a proper day school. He is still backward about talking but bright in other ways. I don't think he will ever be one for books. His bent seems to be mechanical, and he is very good at farm work. If he grew to be a farmer 5 I should be pleased, though I shan't try to influence him. . . .6