Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OneLongjumping4022 t1_j12jplh wrote

I think what you're missing is the historic human context. If you had the historic background, you would be able to connect the specific animals to the events Orwell was referencing. It's literally human history.

30

Prize_Effort_4478 OP t1_j13cvkl wrote

Did the author write this book completely 100% according to Stalin's history? Or he used his imagination to create some content that is different from the historical event?

6

Fake_Human_Being t1_j13jlux wrote

While it’s obviously not a history of the USSR, the book very closely aligns with historical fact (plus Orwell’s opinion on Stalinism)

The farmer is the Tsar and bourgeois of Russia, and they are opposed by Old Major (Lenin and/or Marx) who inspires Napoleon (Stalin) and Snowball (Trotsky) to rebel.

Old Major and Snowball are shown to be genuinely interested in Animalism (Communism) while Napoleon only uses it as a method to consolidate his own power.

Old Major is realistically more of a representation of ‘ideal’ communism than a real person. The corruption of Old Majors commandments by Napoleon is one of the central themes of the novel.

Snowball is also treated far more sympathetically in the book than Trotsky. In real life, Orwell had little time for Trotsky or Trotskyism, but here Snowball is used to show how Stalin used Trotsky as a scapegoat for all his policy failures.

Squealer and the dogs are representative of Stalin’s propaganda and secret police. Boxer is used to represent the true believer working class who carried the Bolsheviks to power.

The hens broadly represent kulaks (small farmers) and Ukrainians who were forced to give up grain, starved and brutally oppressed by Stalin.

The sheep are used by Orwell to depict the Russian people too stupid to realise they’re being oppressed, or too cowardly to stand up for themselves.

Later in the novel, Napoleon carries out fake trials, accusing opponents of ridiculous, over the top crimes and claiming they admitted to them before executing them. This is a very real parallel to Stalin’s show trials.

Mr Whymper is the west/capitalism and Napoleon’s dealings with him is Orwell accusing Stalin of doing business deals with capitalists to make money. George Orwell himself was a very ideological socialist who felt that Stalin completely abandoned communism and pandered to the west.

So while the book isn’t a play-by-play historical recount of Stalinism, it is a broadly accurate depiction of Stalin’s time in control of the USSR

25

Jampine t1_j13nxd2 wrote

One thing I just thought about, he (Rightfully) accused them of selling out to capitalists when it suits them, but is there any parallels to the Soviets deals with the Nazis?

Before the war, Germany did secret tank testing in Russia, as partt of a joint agreement, which gave them advancements other other countries bon tank design, not sure if Orwell would have known about that.

However, what was very publicly know was the Molotov-Ribbentrov pact, where the USSR signed a non aggression pact with the Nazis, in exchange for eastern Poland.

Obviously the Nazis betrayed them, but up till then, the Communists where alright with the Nazis, despite their idealogy being opposed.

On a way, the Nazis played both sides, capitalists where too afraid of the Communists, and vice versa, they where too preoccupied with each other, they let the Nazis get away with a lot more than they should (In the build up to the war).

5

Fake_Human_Being t1_j13q2wl wrote

In fairness, before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the USSR were trying to form alliances with the western allies throughout the 1930s. Maxim Litvinov worked hard to form an alliance with the UK and France, but both governments were more concerned with suppressing communism, and in France’s case, directing Nazi Germany eastwards suited them better.

The ideal outcome for the UK/France was for Nazi Germany and the USSR fight each other to a standstill, which would weaken both Fascism and Communism.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was made by necessity for the USSR and convenience by the Germans. It is no more an endorsement of Nazism than the Munich Agreement was.

The Russian military was never strong enough to face the full focus of German advancement, and in 1938/39 they were in no position to take them on.

7

JamJarre t1_j13sht8 wrote

Frederick is Hitler and his farm is Germany. The animals make an agreement with Frederick, and he reneges on it with fake money - following this he attacks the farm. Same with Hitler, Stalin and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

7

Prize_Effort_4478 OP t1_j17q58a wrote

Thanks for the explanation. It give me a new significance to this book.

3

Seevalk t1_j13kjl3 wrote

Orwell himself stated that his book was intended as a satire of the Russian revolution and that he regarded the destruction of the Soviet myth (i.e. that the Soviet Union was 'good' and things were going well there) was essential.

9

rfpelmen t1_j13i3o7 wrote

e.g. Snowball's personality is way too idealized to be accurate portrait. so second option

2