I've heard from some one that novel 1984 was not a very excellent novel but under US propaganda and CIA's pressure it became famous. And also the opposite of this happened to novel Brave New World. How much of this is true? As my personal opinion both novels were great and US advocations from 1984 novel is so rational base on this fact that on that time US was in cold war.

  • 2
    Welcome to History:Stack Exchange. Thank you for your question; please consider revising it to be more in line with our community expectations. Like many other stacks, we expect questions to provide evidence of prior research. That helps us to understand the question, and avoids our repeating work you've already done. Our help center, and other stacks provide additional resources to assist with revisions.
    – MCW
    Nov 10 '20 at 17:26
  • 7
    It would be very helpful if you could state where you heard this. Doing history without sources is like doing physics without units. The question is phrased in subjective terms (e.g. "not a very excellent", "opinion", "great"), which is going to make it difficult to provide an authoritative answer.
    – MCW
    Nov 10 '20 at 17:28
  • 1
    Also note that questions of the form Is this true present problems in this forum.
    – MCW
    Nov 10 '20 at 17:30
  • 5
    Discussion and opinions are out of scope for this forum; help center says, among other things, that if the intent is to participate in a discussion, then there are other internet sites that will better serve the need. Good luck
    – MCW
    Nov 10 '20 at 17:36
  • 2
    The closest reference I can find is that apparently the CIA helped bankroll an animated version of Animal Farm and changed the ending. (After Orwell's death.) Without any support that this was actually said other than by that nefarious "someone", it's not worth answering. Nov 10 '20 at 19:32

From a recent book of his letters, one Noel Willmett, who had asked (Orwell) “whether totalitarianism, leader-worship etc. are really on the up-grade” given “that they are not apparently growing in [England] and the USA”.

This was his reply:

I must say I believe, or fear, that taking the world as a whole these things are on the increase. Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening (a) Stalin, (b) the Anglo-American millionaires and (c) all sorts of petty fuhrers of the type of de Gaulle. All the national movements everywhere, even those that originate in resistance to German domination, seem to take non-democratic forms, to group themselves round some superhuman fuhrer (Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Franco, Gandhi, De Valera are all varying examples) and to adopt the theory that the end justifies the means. Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.

As to the comparative immunity of Britain and the USA. Whatever the pacifists etc. may say, we have not gone totalitarian yet and this is a very hopeful symptom. I believe very deeply, as I explained in my book The Lion and the Unicorn, in the English people and in their capacity to centralise their economy without destroying freedom in doing so. But one must remember that Britain and the USA haven’t been really tried, they haven’t known defeat or severe suffering, and there are some bad symptoms to balance the good ones. To begin with there is the general indifference to the decay of democracy. Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a damn for this? Secondly there is the fact that the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. Indeed the statement that we haven’t a Fascist movement in England largely means that the young, at this moment, look for their fuhrer elsewhere. One can’t be sure that that won’t change, nor can one be sure that the common people won’t think ten years hence as the intellectuals do now. I hope they won’t, I even trust they won’t, but if so it will be at the cost of a struggle. If one simply proclaims that all is for the best and doesn’t point to the sinister symptoms, one is merely helping to bring totalitarianism nearer.

You also ask, if I think the world tendency is towards Fascism, why do I support the war. It is a choice of evils—I fancy nearly every war is that. I know enough of British imperialism not to like it, but I would support it against Nazism or Japanese imperialism, as the lesser evil. Similarly I would support the USSR against Germany because I think the USSR cannot altogether escape its past and retains enough of the original ideas of the Revolution to make it a more hopeful phenomenon than Nazi Germany. I think, and have thought ever since the war began, in 1936 or thereabouts, that our cause is the better, but we have to keep on making it the better, which involves constant criticism.

Yours sincerely, Geo. Orwell

Source of this quote (emphasis mine).

Admittedly, he did get the wrong ‘Atlantic partner’. But, given such prescience, I doubt Orwell needed any “propaganda”.

  • 2
    Interesting, but it doesn't answer the question, which I guess is about CIA propaganda being the source of success. Nov 10 '20 at 19:30
  • 1
    Is that how books sell? By “propaganda”? I thought it was “marketing”, in one form or another. On this - the example given here - Orwell didn’t need anyone’s help to promote his writing. That’s just my opinion.
    – J Asia
    Nov 10 '20 at 20:23
  • 2
    I agree completely. But it still doesn't answer the question. (Which may not be answerable in its current state) Nov 10 '20 at 20:36
  • Since Orwell was Marxist and anti-Imperialist, I doubt the CIA would've gone out of their way to support his book during the Cold War, although I suspect (from literary allusions in Saul Bellow's Mr. Samler's Planet) that some of the more know-nothing left in the 1960's and '70's came to regard Orwell as a reactionary. I think you'd have to be a pretty-far-gone Stalin apologist to see Brave New World and 1984 as opposed to each other in any way.
    – antlersoft
    Nov 11 '20 at 16:03
  • @JAsia marketing is propaganda
    – user253751
    Nov 11 '20 at 17:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.