416
PARTISAN REVIEW
soul," and by this one gathers that the sickness was exemplified by Cham·
herlain and the soul·finding by Churchill. Unfortunately, deep changes
do not occur so easily as that. England does not even know what she
it
fighting for, only what she is fighting against. The pacifists' "champion·
ing" of Hitler referred to by Orwell is simply a recognition by us
that
Hitler and Germany contain a real historical dynamic, whereas we do not.
Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on
Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemna·
tion, hut understanding. This does not mean that we like, or defend
him.
Personally I do not care for Hitler. He is, however, "realler" than Cham·
herlain, Churchill, Cripps, etc., in that he is the vehicle of raw historical
forces, whereas they are stuffed dummies, waxwork figures, living in
unreality. We do not desire a German "victory"; we would not lift a
finger to help either Britain or Germany to "win"; hut there would
be
a
profound justice, I feel, however terrible, in a German victory. (In actual·
ity, any ruler would find us rather awkward customers, one no less
than
another.)
Now, how about Mr. Orwell's own position, and the position of peo–
ple like him? I would ask him to consider, first, the company he keeps.
Who are his leaders? What is the actual social system which he is fighting
to defend? What hopes has he of diverting the stream of history the way
he
wants it to go? Brave words and muddled thinking cannot disguise
the fact that Mr. Orwell, like all the other supporters of the war, shipping
magnates, coal owners, proletarians, university professors, Sunday jour·
nalists, Trade Union leaders, Church dignitaries, scoundrels and honest
men, is being swept along by history, not directing it. Like them, he will
he deposited, along with other detritus, where history decides, not where
he thinks. Mr. Orwell is, I believe, a man of integrity, an honest man. But
that does not make up for his superficiality. And can we afford super·
ficiality, at any time, still less times like these?
May 11, 1942
DRY DRAYTON, ENGLAND
George Vfoodcock:
I hope you will allow me to comment in your columns on certain
references in George Orwell's London Letter to the review
Now,
of which
I am editor.
Orwell suggests that this paper has a Fascist tendency, and names two
of its contributors, Hugh Ross Williamson and the Duke of Bedford, to
prove his case. In fact,
Now
was established early in the war as a review
for publishing literary matter and also as a forum for controversial writ·
ing which could not readily find publication under wartime
conditio~~&
Not all the writers were opposed to the war, and of the fifty odd con·
trihutors to the seven numbers only two, those named by Orwell, were
even reputed to have Fascist tendencies. Neither of these men contributed
more than one article to the review. The remaining writers included
