Churchill and Orwell: A Review

I know this is a departure from my normal blog content, but I felt I needed to post a review of a book I just finished. George Orwell is my favorite writer. Every year I re-read Animal Farm (usually in a day or so) and 1984 gets re-read every 2 or 3 years. And anyone who attended my Ignite Talk at the 2017 APMP International Bid and Proposal Conference knows about my adoration of Winston Churchill.

So when my sister told me about a new book she heard about on NPR, it seemed like a work tailored for me. Thomas E Ricks’ 2017 book about both men, entitled Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom, is a comparative biography that looks at the unexpected similarities and connections between an ardent socialist and a Conservative Prime Minister. Ricks does a great job developing a coherent reason for his book and provides some good information about these two huge figures in the 20th and 21st centuries. Both become massive public figures in the 1940s, Churchill as the man who led Britain to victory over the Nazis and Orwell as a globally influential writer with two massive best sellers.

Ricks provides an interesting argument in his comparison of how both men overcame the opposition of their own political movements and ended up being on the right side of history. For Orwell, the move of the far left towards Stalinist Communism, which he was deeply skeptical of, was a step too far. Given his own experience in the Spanish Civil War, where the Soviet-backed authorities outlawed certain socialist organizations (including the one Orwell belonged to) because they need not support Stalin, it is not surprising Orwell began to develop his own path on the left. For Churchill, Conservative Party opposition came as a result of his fight against appeasement of Hitler and his deep connection with India (where both he and Orwell served during their careers). Ricks correctly states, “Churchill ranted so much about India policy (he was against independence) and Germany (he thought the threat was underestimated) that he wore out his welcome with his own party, whose leaders grew determined to keep him out of the Cabinet.” (Loc 736)

Also central for Ricks is how Orwell and Churchill had similar antipathy to authoritarianism and preservation of the individual in modern society. As he writes, “Orwell and Churchill recognized that the key question of their century ultimately was not who controlled the means of production, as Marx thought, or how the human psyche functioned, as Freud taught, but rather how to preserve the liberty of the individual during an age when the state was becoming powerfully intrusive into private life.” (Loc 92)

For Orwell, this antipathy stemmed from his experience in the Spanish Civil War. He was equally skeptical of Stalin as he was of Hitler, believing  “a communist and a fascist are somewhat nearer to one another than either is to a democrat.” (Loc 1217) He also feared what would be coming in the post-war era. To quote Ricks, “not only would the all-powerful state forbid people to express certain thoughts, he worried, it would take an additional step and tell them what to think.” (Loc 3359)

Churchill’s disgust of authoritarianism is well-known; he spent from the early 1930s to 1945 fighting Nazism and 1945 until his death in 1965 fighting against Communism. Churchill coined the term “iron curtain,” debuting it at a speech in Missouri in May 1946. It dovetails nicely with Orwell – both saw the threats of the extreme left and right and looked to preserve the possibility of individual freedom.

Another common love for these two individuals is a love of language and critical thought. Churchill is thought to have written anywhere from 9 to 15 million words in the life. He once stated, “The man who cannot say what he has to say in good English cannot have very much to say that is worth listening to.” (Loc 2822) Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” is a landmark piece on the standing of the English language and how it can be used as a political weapon. One of my favorite lines from Orwell (which I intend to make a guiding principle in my writing) is:

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. (Loc 2804)

Ricks also finds mutual respect between the two. He is much more convincing when arguing Orwell’s appreciation for Churchill; his use of Orwell’s diaries and mention of 1984‘s main character possibly being named after the Prime Minister are particularly strong. The evidence for Churchill’s reciprocation is not as clear or as available. Ricks does his best with what does exist but it does feel like a bit of a stretch.

There are some shortcomings in Ricks’ approach. As one would expect in a comparative biography, both individuals are covered broadly. There are lots of details about each individual that needed to be excluded simply due to space constraints. My main objection is how some of Churchill’s shortcomings are painted over, especially regarding his position and policies over India. Churchill was a great man, but far from a perfect one. Some additional coverage of the complexities of his public and private personas could add some additional depth to the volume.

On the whole, Ricks has produced an interesting, page-turning work that will appeal to fans of either individual or those wishing to have a better understanding of the conflicts and clashes in inter-war Britain. The book flows well, includes some great tidbits and quotations, and I recommend it.