george orwell atomic bomb essay

• About George Orwell
• Partners and Sponsors
• Accessibility
• Policies and complaints
• Upcoming events
• The Orwell Festival
• The Orwell Memorial Lectures
• Books by Orwell
• Essays and other works
• Encountering Orwell
• Orwell Live
• About the prizes
• Reporting Homelessness
• Previous winners
• Orwell Fellows
• Introduction
• Volunteering
• Terms and Conditions
• Start your journey
• Inspiration
• Find Your Form
• Start Writing
• Responding to Feedback
• Our offer for teachers
• Lesson Plans
• Events and Workshops
• GCSE Practice Papers
• Finalists 2024
• The Orwell Youth Fellows

The Orwell Foundation

• The Orwell Prizes
• The Orwell Youth Prize

You and the Atom Bomb

This material remains under copyright in some jurisdictions, including the US, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of  the Orwell Estate . The Orwell Foundation is an independent charity – please consider  making a donation  or becoming a Friend of the Foundation to help us maintain these resources for readers everywhere. 

Considering how likely we all are to be blown to pieces by it within the next five years, the atomic bomb has not roused so much discussion as might have been expected. The newspapers have published numerous diagrams, not very helpful to the average man, of protons and neutrons doing their stuff, and there has been much reiteration of the useless statement that the bomb “ought to be put under international control.” But curiously little has been said, at any rate in print, about the question that is of most urgent interest to all of us, namely: “How difficult are these things to manufacture?”

Such information as we – that is, the big public – possess on this subject has come to us in a rather indirect way, apropos of President Truman’s decision not to hand over certain secrets to the USSR. Some months ago, when the bomb was still only a rumour, there was a widespread belief that splitting the atom was merely a problem for the physicists, and that when they had solved it a new and devastating weapon would be within reach of almost everybody. (At any moment, so the rumour went, some lonely lunatic in a laboratory might blow civilisation to smithereens, as easily as touching off a firework.)

Had that been true, the whole trend of history would have been abruptly altered. The distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out, and the power of the State over the individual would have been greatly weakened. However, it appears from President Truman’s remarks, and various comments that have been made on them, that the bomb is fantastically expensive and that its manufacture demands an enormous industrial effort, such as only three or four countries in the world are capable of making. This point is of cardinal importance, because it may mean that the discovery of the atomic bomb, so far from reversing history, will simply intensify the trends which have been apparent for a dozen years past.

It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.

The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle . This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans – even Tibetans – could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three – ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon – or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting – not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.

From various symptoms one can infer that the Russians do not yet possess the secret of making the atomic bomb; on the other hand, the consensus of opinion seems to be that they will possess it within a few years. So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them. It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars, and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilisation. But suppose – and really this the likeliest development – that the surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the atomic bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate? In that case we are back where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.

When James Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution it seemed probable to many Americans that the Germans would win the European end of the war, and it was therefore natural to assume that Germany and not Russia would dominate the Eurasian land mass, while Japan would remain master of East Asia. This was a miscalculation, but it does not affect the main argument. For Burnham’s geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be correct. More and more obviously the surface of the earth is being parcelled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy. The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years, and the third of the three super-states – East Asia, dominated by China – is still potential rather than actual. But the general drift is unmistakable, and every scientific discovery of recent years has accelerated it.

We were once told that the aeroplane had “abolished frontiers”; actually it is only since the aeroplane became a serious weapon that frontiers have become definitely impassable. The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and co-operation; it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another. The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.

For forty or fifty years past, Mr. H. G. Wells and others have been warning us that man is in danger of destroying himself with his own weapons, leaving the ants or some other gregarious species to take over. Anyone who has seen the ruined cities of Germany will find this notion at least thinkable. Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham’s theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications – that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of “cold war” with its neighbours.

Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police State. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a “peace that is no peace”.

Tribune , 19 October 1945

We use cookies. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Accept

Orwell and the Atomic Bomb

5th August 2020 by Richard Lance Keeble

George Orwell’s reflections about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August seventy-five years ago – in a wide range of writings – are among his most important and insightful.

His first major statement comes in an essay, ‘You and the Atom Bomb’, published in Tribune on 19 October 1945 where he concentrates on the Bomb’s impact on the state. ‘The discovery of the atomic bomb, so far from reversing history, will simply intensify the trends which have been apparent for a dozen years at least,’ he says. The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. Most nations could get hold of rifles so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans and Tibetans could fight for independence, sometimes with success. Thereafter, every development in military technique has favoured the state. In 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale – now there are only three – and perhaps only two.

He writes: ‘So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds dividing the world between them. … It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilization. But suppose – and really this is the likeliest development – that the surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the atomic bomb against one another ? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate ? In that case, we are back to where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.’ The outcome is indefinite ‘peace that is no peace’.

This is Orwell, then, in his bleakest mood. Is there any hope ? Only if cheap and easily manufactured weapons can be developed that are ‘not dependent on huge concentration of industrial plant’.

He takes James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1941) to task for predicting that Germany, not Russia, would dominate the Eurasian land mass. Yet Burnham’s essential world view has turned out correct. ‘More and more obviously, the surface of the earth is being parcelled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the wider world and each ruled, under one guise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy.’ Without directly saying so, Orwell suggests that most likely some combination of Western Europe and the United States, a nuclear-armed Soviet Union and East Asia, led by China, will dominate this new, permanent state of ‘cold war’. All this clearly anticipates the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four in which three super-states, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, are at constant war. As Dorian Lynskey comments in The Ministry of Truth: A Biography of George Orwell’s 1984 (2019): ‘Having invented the phrase “cold war”, he also anticipated the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.’

The Tribune essay significantly draws a response from Alex Comfort, the pacifist with whom Orwell has earlier engaged in a controversy in verse over the cases for and against waging war. Following the spat, the two, remarkably, become friends. In an article in War Commentary , just three weeks after the atomic blasts, Comfort condemns them as acts of ‘criminal lunacy which must be without parallel in recorded history’. Now, in his letter to Tribune , Comfort begins by praising Orwell for putting his finger ‘as usual, on the wider analytical point’ that different types of weapons tend to produce particular types of societies. Yet, he stresses, ‘another conclusion is possible besides mere resignation to the omnipotence of tyrants equipped with nuclear energy. Not only are social institutions dictated by weapon-power: so are revolutionary tactics, and it seems to me that Orwell has made the case for the tactical use of disobedience, which he has tended to condemn in the past as pacifism’.

Early in 1946, Orwell gives a talk to the Red Flag Fellowship and again expresses concern over the coming of the atom bomb. If war breaks out between the US and the USSR, he says, he would choose the US, since, despite all the faults of uncontrolled capitalism, they had at least liberty. The Soviet Union was so despotic there was little hope of liberty ever emerging there.

His fears over the emergence of phony wars between a tiny number of super-states, first expressed in ‘You and the Atom Bomb’, appear again in his essay ‘Toward European Unity’ for the July/August 1947 issue of Partisan Review . Within each nuclear-armed state, he says, the ‘necessary psychological atmosphere would be kept up by complete severance from the outer world and by a continuous phony war against rival states. Civilization of this type might remain static for thousands of years’. As Bernard Crick comments in his 1980 biography: ‘This is Nineteen Eighty-Four .’ But this time a new mood of idealism mixes with the pessimism. There is hope – and it lies in European democratic socialism ‘where people are relatively free and happy and where the main motive in life is not the pursuit of money or power’. ‘Apart from Australia and New Zealand, the tradition of democratic Socialism can only be said to exist … in Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, the Low Countries, France, Britain, Spain and Italy. Only in those countries are there still large numbers of people to whom the word “Socialism” has some appeal and for whom it is bound up with liberty, equality and internationalism.’

Atomic warfare plays a crucial role in Nineteen Eighty-Four . On one occasion, Winston Smith meets Julia, the ‘girl from the Fiction Department’, with whom he has a passionate affair, in the ruins of a church destroyed in a nuclear attack ‘thirty years’ earlier – which suggests the revolution which allowed the Party to seize power occurred in 1954. And when Winston reflects on his childhood in London, one of his earliest memories is of a sudden air raid. ‘Perhaps it was the time when the atomic bomb had fallen on Colchester. He did not remember the raid itself, but he did remember his father’s hand clutching his own as they hurried down, down, down into some place deep in the earth…’

To a certain degree, Orwell’s retreat to the remote Scottish island of Jura in the last years of his life in order to concentrate, away from the drudgery of journalism, on writing what was to become his dystopian masterpiece, was also inspired by his fear of atomic warfare. As he confides to his friend Tosco Fyvel in December 1947: ‘This stupid war is coming off in abt 10-20 years, and this country will be blown off the map whatever happens. The only hope is to have a few animals in some place not worth a bomb.’ And to his friend, Julian Symons, in December 1948, he writes: ‘If the show does start and is as bad as one fears, it would be fairly easy to be self-supporting on these islands provided one wasn’t looted.’

After the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four on 8 June 1949, in London, and five days later in New York, Orwell discusses with his publisher, Fredric Warburg, who visits him at Cranham sanatorium, his serious concerns over the misinterpretations of his great novel’s focus – in particular, on its warnings about atomic warfare. In Warburg’s follow-up note on the discussion, which appears in Volume 20 of the Collected Works , edited by Peter Davison, Orwell makes clear that the Soviet Union is not the primary target. Rather, ‘the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the USSR and the new weapon, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colour.’

So right until near the very end of his life, atomic warfare is a major preoccupation of George Orwell – a fact worth remembering as people all around the country gather to mark the 75 th anniversary of the attacks on Japan.

Richard Lance Keeble was chair of The Orwell Society from 2013 to 2020. His latest books are Journalism Beyond Orwell (Routledge 2020) and George Orwell, The Secret State and the Making of Nineteen Eighty-Four (Abramis, 2020).

2 replies on “Orwell and the Atomic Bomb”

Like Orwell, I’m a rightist from a mode that has more currency in European modes than American as most American “conservatives” really are Classical Liberals or economic Libertarians not traditionalists as the USA broke all ties with traditional governance in its War of Independence that really wasn’t a revolution actually! We on the Right need to assess in the age of Maoist China’s COVID 19 the reality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether it was right in being necessary militarily to make peace with beaten Japan because there was no moral justification as it was aimed primarily at civilians not military targets. Also, the results of Maoist China as the last totalitarian Super Power left to keep their system of organized oppression with no one able to censure them due to their weaponry and wealth for it even when their actions affect the peoples of other nations like they have! We Americans lost all moral high ground we could have because in Hiroshima and Nagasaki we did what no other country has done against a foe’s civilian centers to the extent we did it for what I say objectively were negligible military justifications for it! True rightist historian John Toland and George Orwell would have been in agreement on the action of unleashing atomic destruction on densely populated centers twice especially when once was more than enough as the Japanese were trying to make a honorable truce as Toland proves. Sad reality is that it seems the US authorities of the Harry Truman Administration were genuinely more interested to see the extent of the destruction their weapons could do not so much concerned about beating Japan as they knew it was militarily beaten. The Japanese had no Navy nor Air Force left. Tojo had been overthrown by the Emperor who wanted a peaceful truce. Sir Winston Churchill suggested restraint as he was afraid of China going Soviet if the Japanese were removed without there being any resistance to the Stalin’s USSR forces from the East. Japan had been an ally of the U.K.’s in WWI. Like Orwell’s fear of nukes, Churchill’s fear of a communist victory in China was correct! I would argue that the world today is a more scary place because of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki when negotiations were not utilized in favor of seeing the destructive effects of nukes while paving the way for the Sovietization of Asia which occurred with the Korean and Vietnam Wars as a result! The USSR and all the Powers became interested in acquiring and developing greater nukes once the effects they could do was shown with the atomic effects of nukes not going away with the rubble of explosions like conventional weapons. Is that all a good thing helpful to anybody of any political persuasion? As a Rightist, I’m a Luddite type who says “No”! Personally, as a history researcher and Rightist not happy with Maoist China’s influence in the world, I don’t think the long-term results justified that action when a negotiated settlement could have been pursued for Japan and its anti-communist allies in Asia!

This is a very illuminating article, thank you for publishing it. The Outer Hebrides are a marvelous and (still) quiet place on planet earth. The vision of Mr. Orwell producing his masterpiece 1984 at a rented farmhouse on the Isle of Jura is compelling. Mr. Orwell was unique, perhaps, in that he was able to so clearly and admirably foresee the future. Remember his last words: “It is up to is to prevent it.” IT being the horrific, anti-human, anti-love, anti-sex world painted in the novel 1984. We still have the power to prevent IT, but we must not fail ourselves nor fool ourselves nor turn our backs on our brothers ans sisters.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Posts

• Congratulations, Darcy Moore
• Orwell, Mosley, Fascist Meeting
• Finally: The Rat’s Voice is Heard
• Orwell and His Times
• Orwell and His Work
• Orwell and Place
• Orwell in the News
• Orwell Reviews
• People associated with Orwell
• The Orwell Society
• Video and Audio

Orwell’s 5 greatest essays: No. 4, “You and the Atomic Bomb”

• Copy Link URL Copied!

For anyone interested in the politics of left and right--and in political journalism as it is practiced at the highest level, Orwell’s works are indispensable. This week, in the year marks the 110th anniversary of his birth, we present a personal list of his five greatest essays.

Published a mere two and a half months after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Orwell’s “You and the Atomic Bomb” is notable as one of the first efforts to divine the social and political implications of a new weapon of previously unimaginable power. Its fame arises from Orwell’s coinage of a new term for the permanent standoff the bomb would foster between two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union: the “cold war.”

The social and political aspects of nuclear weapons had been debated for a year by physicists working on the Manhattan Project, though even most of them--thanks to the requirements of secrecy within the project--were unaware of how far the overall work had progressed until the bombs were dropped on Japan. With the blasts, the issues were thrown open for public debate.

Orwell places the bomb properly within the historical continuum. “It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons,” he writes. “Ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.”

As for the cold war, that infinite “peace that is no peace,” Orwell foresees that it will not be long before the Soviets join the Americans as sole possessors of the bomb’s secrets.

“From various symptoms one can infer that the Russians do not yet possess the secret of making the atomic bomb; on the other hand, the consensus of opinion seems to be that they will possess it within a few years. So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them.”

In at least one regard, Orwell’s vision was no more farsighted than anyone else’s in 1945: What happens when one of those super-states collapses?

More to Read

Turning to essays, Edwidge Danticat makes shrewd use of the form

Aug. 30, 2024

Opinion: ‘Oppenheimer’s’ best performance — reminding us that we live in dangerous times

March 6, 2024

Sci-fi, drama, noir, comedy: How atomic terror has played out at the movies

Feb. 6, 2024

Sign up for our Book Club newsletter

Get the latest news, events and more from the Los Angeles Times Book Club, and help us get L.A. reading and talking.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik has written for the Los Angeles Times for more than 40 years. His business column appears in print every Sunday and Wednesday, and occasionally on other days. Hiltzik and colleague Chuck Philips shared the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for articles exposing corruption in the entertainment industry. His seventh book, “Iron Empires: Robber Barons, Railroads, and the Making of Modern America,” was published in 2020. His forthcoming book, “The Golden State,” is a history of California. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/hiltzikm and on Facebook at facebook.com/hiltzik.

More From the Los Angeles Times

De Los Reads: Luis Jaramillo’s ‘The Witches of El Paso’ and other books by Latino authors we’re reading in November

Nov. 7, 2024

Entertainment & Arts

Unlikely action star Luke Evans relived his past to inspire others

The week’s bestselling books, Nov. 10

Nov. 6, 2024

This one goes out to the band we loved: Author reclaims R.E.M.’s artistry throughout its lifespan

Nov. 5, 2024

Most Read in Books

A look into the decade that defined Brian De Palma could use more critical consideration

Sept. 3, 2024

The best free cultural &

educational media on the web

• Online Courses
• Certificates
• Degrees & Mini-Degrees
• Audio Books

George Orwell’s Five Greatest Essays (as Selected by Pulitzer-Prize Winning Columnist Michael Hiltzik)

in English Language , Literature , Politics | November 12th, 2013 Comments Off on George Orwell’s Five Greatest Essays (as Selected by Pulitzer-Prize Winning Columnist Michael Hiltzik)

Every time I’ve taught George Orwell’s famous 1946 essay on mis­lead­ing, smudgy writ­ing, “ Pol­i­tics and the Eng­lish Lan­guage ,” to a group of under­grad­u­ates, we’ve delight­ed in point­ing out the num­ber of times Orwell vio­lates his own rules—indulges some form of vague, “pre­ten­tious” dic­tion, slips into unnec­es­sary pas­sive voice, etc.  It’s a pet­ty exer­cise, and Orwell him­self pro­vides an escape clause for his list of rules for writ­ing clear Eng­lish: “Break any of these rules soon­er than say any­thing out­right bar­barous.” But it has made us all feel slight­ly bet­ter for hav­ing our writ­ing crutch­es pushed out from under us.

Orwell’s essay, writes the L.A. Times ’ Pulitzer-Prize win­ning colum­nist Michael Hiltzik , “stands as the finest decon­struc­tion of sloven­ly writ­ing since Mark Twain’s “ Fen­i­more Cooper’s Lit­er­ary Offens­es .” Where Twain’s essay takes on a pre­ten­tious aca­d­e­m­ic estab­lish­ment that unthink­ing­ly ele­vates bad writ­ing, “Orwell makes the con­nec­tion between degrad­ed lan­guage and polit­i­cal deceit (at both ends of the polit­i­cal spec­trum).” With this con­cise descrip­tion, Hiltzik begins his list of Orwell’s five great­est essays, each one a bul­wark against some form of emp­ty polit­i­cal lan­guage, and the often bru­tal effects of its “pure wind.”

One spe­cif­ic exam­ple of the lat­ter comes next on Hiltzak’s list  (actu­al­ly a series he has pub­lished over the month) in Orwell’s 1949 essay on Gand­hi. The piece clear­ly names the abus­es of the impe­r­i­al British occu­piers of India, even as it strug­gles against the can­on­iza­tion of Gand­hi the man, con­clud­ing equiv­o­cal­ly that “his char­ac­ter was extra­or­di­nar­i­ly a mixed one, but there was almost noth­ing in it that you can put your fin­ger on and call bad.” Orwell is less ambiva­lent in Hiltzak’s third choice , the spiky 1946 defense of Eng­lish com­ic writer P.G. Wode­house , whose behav­ior after his cap­ture dur­ing the Sec­ond World War under­stand­ably baf­fled and incensed the British pub­lic. The last two essays on the list, “ You and the Atom­ic Bomb ” from 1945 and the ear­ly “ A Hang­ing ,” pub­lished in 1931, round out Orwell’s pre- and post-war writ­ing as a polemi­cist and clear-sight­ed polit­i­cal writer of con­vic­tion. Find all five essays free online at the links below. And find some of Orwell’s great­est works in our col­lec­tion of Free eBooks .

1. “ Pol­i­tics and the Eng­lish Lan­guage ”

2. “ Reflec­tions on Gand­hi ”

3. “ In Defense of P.G. Wode­house ”

4. “ You and the Atom­ic Bomb ”

5. “ A Hang­ing ”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

George Orwell’s 1984: Free eBook, Audio Book & Study Resources

The Only Known Footage of George Orwell (Cir­ca 1921)

George Orwell and Dou­glas Adams Explain How to Make a Prop­er Cup of Tea

Josh Jones  is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at  @jdmagness

by Josh Jones | Permalink | Comments (0) |

Related posts:

• 1,700 Free Online Courses
• 200 Online Certificate Programs
• 100+ Online Degree & Mini-Degree Programs
• 1,150 Free Movies
• 1,000 Free Audio Books
• 150+ Best Podcasts
• 800 Free eBooks
• 200 Free Textbooks
• 300 Free Language Lessons
• 150 Free Business Courses
• Free K-12 Education
• Get Our Daily Email

Free Courses

• Art & Art History
• Classics/Ancient World
• Computer Science
• Data Science
• Engineering
• Environment
• Political Science
• Writing & Journalism
• All 1700 Free Courses

Receive our Daily Email

Free updates, get our daily email.

Get the best cultural and educational resources on the web curated for you in a daily email. We never spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

FOLLOW ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Free Movies

• 1150 Free Movies Online
• Free Film Noir
• Silent Films
• Documentaries
• Martial Arts/Kung Fu
• Free Hitchcock Films
• Free Charlie Chaplin
• Free John Wayne Movies
• Free Tarkovsky Films
• Free Dziga Vertov
• Free Oscar Winners
• Free Language Lessons
• All Languages

Free eBooks

• 700 Free eBooks
• Free Philosophy eBooks
• The Harvard Classics
• Philip K. Dick Stories
• Neil Gaiman Stories
• David Foster Wallace Stories & Essays
• Hemingway Stories
• Great Gatsby & Other Fitzgerald Novels
• HP Lovecraft
• Edgar Allan Poe
• Free Alice Munro Stories
• Jennifer Egan Stories
• George Saunders Stories
• Hunter S. Thompson Essays
• Joan Didion Essays
• Gabriel Garcia Marquez Stories
• David Sedaris Stories
• Stephen King
• Golden Age Comics
• Free Books by UC Press
• Life Changing Books

Free Audio Books

• 700 Free Audio Books
• Free Audio Books: Fiction
• Free Audio Books: Poetry
• Free Audio Books: Non-Fiction

Free Textbooks

• Free Physics Textbooks
• Free Computer Science Textbooks
• Free Math Textbooks

K-12 Resources

• Free Video Lessons
• Web Resources by Subject
• Quality YouTube Channels
• Teacher Resources
• All Free Kids Resources

Free Art & Images

• All Art Images & Books
• The Rijksmuseum
• Smithsonian
• The Guggenheim
• The National Gallery
• The Whitney
• LA County Museum
• Stanford University
• British Library
• Google Art Project
• French Revolution
• Getty Images
• Guggenheim Art Books
• Met Art Books
• Getty Art Books
• New York Public Library Maps
• Museum of New Zealand
• Smarthistory
• Coloring Books
• All Bach Organ Works
• All of Bach
• 80,000 Classical Music Scores
• Free Classical Music
• Live Classical Music
• 9,000 Grateful Dead Concerts
• Alan Lomax Blues & Folk Archive

Writing Tips

• William Zinsser
• Kurt Vonnegut
• Toni Morrison
• Margaret Atwood
• David Ogilvy
• Billy Wilder
• All posts by date

Personal Finance

• Open Personal Finance
• Amazon Kindle
• Architecture
• Artificial Intelligence
• Comics/Cartoons
• Current Affairs
• English Language
• Entrepreneurship
• Food & Drink
• Graduation Speech
• How to Learn for Free
• Internet Archive
• Language Lessons
• Most Popular
• Neuroscience
• Photography
• Pretty Much Pop
• Productivity
• UC Berkeley
• Uncategorized
• Video - Arts & Culture
• Video - Politics/Society
• Video - Science
• Video Games

Great Lectures

• Michel Foucault
• Sun Ra at UC Berkeley
• Richard Feynman
• Joseph Campbell
• Jorge Luis Borges
• Leonard Bernstein
• Richard Dawkins
• Buckminster Fuller
• Walter Kaufmann on Existentialism
• Jacques Lacan
• Roland Barthes
• Nobel Lectures by Writers
• Bertrand Russell
• Oxford Philosophy Lectures

Sign up for Newsletter

Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.

Great Recordings

• T.S. Eliot Reads Waste Land
• Sylvia Plath - Ariel
• Joyce Reads Ulysses
• Joyce - Finnegans Wake
• Patti Smith Reads Virginia Woolf
• Albert Einstein
• Charles Bukowski
• Bill Murray
• Fitzgerald Reads Shakespeare
• William Faulkner
• Flannery O'Connor
• Tolkien - The Hobbit
• Allen Ginsberg - Howl
• Dylan Thomas
• Anne Sexton
• John Cheever
• David Foster Wallace

Book Lists By

• Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Ernest Hemingway
• F. Scott Fitzgerald
• Allen Ginsberg
• Patti Smith
• Henry Miller
• Christopher Hitchens
• Joseph Brodsky
• Donald Barthelme
• David Bowie
• Samuel Beckett
• Art Garfunkel
• Marilyn Monroe
• Picks by Female Creatives
• Zadie Smith & Gary Shteyngart
• Lynda Barry

Favorite Movies

• Kurosawa's 100
• David Lynch
• Werner Herzog
• Woody Allen
• Wes Anderson
• Luis Buñuel
• Roger Ebert
• Susan Sontag
• Scorsese Foreign Films
• Philosophy Films
• November 2024
• October 2024
• September 2024
• August 2024
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• February 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• November 2021
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• August 2018
• February 2018
• January 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• October 2017
• September 2017
• August 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• February 2016
• January 2016
• December 2015
• November 2015
• October 2015
• September 2015
• August 2015
• February 2015
• January 2015
• December 2014
• November 2014
• October 2014
• September 2014
• August 2014
• February 2014
• January 2014
• December 2013
• November 2013
• October 2013
• September 2013
• August 2013
• February 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• September 2012
• August 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• August 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006

©2006-2024 Open Culture, LLC. All rights reserved.

• Advertise with Us
• Copyright Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Index Index

• Other Authors :    

Summary and analysis of Orwell’s You and the atomic bomb

George orwell’s you and the atomic bomb: summary & analysis.

While many people have written about the Atomic Bomb and its effects on world peace and unity, Orwell’s essay tackles the subject from a different angle. The essay is sarcastic as well as analytical and highlights some serious issues related to the possession of an atomic bomb.  Critics consider ‘You and the Atomic Bomb’ a background to Orwell’s famous novel ‘1984’. This fantastic essay highlights the devastating power of the Atomic Bomb and discusses how it could change the balance of power and the future course of humanity. Rather than seeing it just as a menace to people’s lives and states’ sovereignty, Orwell considers it a threat to world peace and order. Even if the bomb could not be mass-manufactured, its possession merely was a major threat and for whatever end they used it, the loss was always going to be double. The idea of the atomic bomb was devastating in the sense that whether it was for war or to extract peace, it was going to make humanity suffer in every way.  In a way, he highlights that the destructive power of the Atom Bomb had been miscalculated and misunderstood. The world’s picture was not the same as it was before the dropping of the atom bomb. Orwell’s work was published in the Tribune in 1945 within two months of the dropping of the atom bombs by the U.S. on Japan. Orwell had already written a lot about the bomb but this article contained excellent insights on how devastating this idea could be and how it was the biggest human-created suffering. He marveled at the meagre media coverage of the bomb despite its devastating potential.   He asks if the world map and course of humanity’s future had not changed already with Japan bombings.

Considering how dangerous a weapon the atomic bomb was, it had failed to ignite ample discussion regarding its monstrous impact. Orwell notes that the information and diagrams the newspapers had published including that of protons and neutrons and how atomic bombs worked were of no meaning to the common man. There had been a lot of useless reiteration of the same statement that the atomic bomb instead of being under the control of a nation must be controlled by an international body. However, the one question media and others had purposefully avoided was that how easy or difficult it was to make these bombs. Orwell notes that governments and media were raising questions unrelated to the main topic. The public was either misguided or confused over the topic and this could cause more fear and confusion. Whatever little information people had was by virtue of President Truman’s decision to keep secrets from USSR.

Some months earlier than America dropped the bomb on Japan, there were rumors that physicists had split the atom and a devastating weapon was soon going to be within every nation’s reach. People thought it would be easy to produce one and some lunatic could blow the entire civilization any time and then have a laugh in some lonely corner as if he had lit off fireworks.

If any of these rumors were true, the bomb was going to change the course of civilization forever. It was not just going to blur the distinction between small and large states because every nation that owned the bomb was powerful, but it could also weaken the control states exercised over people. Truman said that producing the bomb was an expensive affair and very few nations in the world were capable of making it. Orwell notes that this is the most important point because, in this manner instead of changing the course of history, the weapon was only going to add momentum to the dangerous trends that had been growing intense for the last dozen years.

Another important problem Orwell highlights in his work is that the atomic bomb was never going to empower the people. He cites examples from history where simple weapons have empowered the weak but the more complex weapons have mainly helped the strong. He cites the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie. Even if people can cite a few exceptions, one can easily tell that the ages in which the dominant weapon is complex, tends to be an age of nepotism. Common people get a chance when the dominant weapon is simple. In this way, the modern weapons of warfare like planes, bombs, and airplanes are fundamentally tyrannical whereas crossbows and muskets are fundamentally democratic. This was in the sense that the weapons that are out of the reach of the common man tend to weaken him and his control over his own affairs. So   while the making of the atom bomb meant the emergence of new loci of power, it also meant control leaving the hands of the common people. The increased power of the states has decreased the control common man held in the state of affairs and his ability to wage a war for his freedom. 

As Orwell further clarifies in the next paragraph, advanced military technology took power and control from people’s hands to the hands of state and government. It always  left people with no power and control. Before the recent advances in military technology, things were simple and people used simple weapons to wage a war for freedom against their oppressors. Increased efficiency of the military structure has always given people less space to mind their affairs freely. He makes it more clear in his novel 1984 that a powerful military state could mean little or no freedom for the common people. It was the musket that   made the American and French revolutions a success. Even the breech-loading rifle that came afterward was complex yet helped Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans — even Tibetans to wage a war for their independence many times to a large extent of success. However, all the developments in the military technique that followed afterward have favored the military against the people and industrialized nations against backward ones. The locus of power has kept shifting and by 1939, there were just five nations with the capability to wage a large scale war. There are now just three (by 1945) or maybe only two. Some observers had highlighted this trend even before 1914.

There was no other way to reverse it but make a weapon or method of fighting that did not depend on industrial plants. Orwell was trying to indicate a dangerous trend that was making people surrender all their personal control and bargaining power to state agencies. Since a few states controlled large industries and war, weaker states stood no chance. This was a dangerous imbalance creating a kind of gap that common people will not be able to fill at any cost unless as he pointed out, a method to fight back was found which did not need large investment, mass production, and industries. While Orwell could see that the Russians yet did not have access to the atomic bomb, they were going to gain access to it in a matter of years. Atomic bomb offered each nation a kind of power that nothing else did. Each of these monstrous nations that possessed this weapon having the capability to not murder but wipeout millions off the face of the earth in a matter of seconds will be considered a center of power. Orwell’s essay keeps getting interesting and engaging but frightening. Especially because Orwell has highlighted all those hidden concerns that multiply the destructive strength of the atomic bomb which did not just have the capability to end an entire civilization but whose mere presence on the earth was a threat to peaceful coexistence on earth. The main concern was how weakened it will leave the poor. In such circumstances, if two nations decide not to use it against each other but against them who do not possess an atomic bomb, it will mean hope shifting away from weaker nations. There will be no change in the situation except that oppressed classes will grow even hopeless.

Orwell points some facts about Burnham’s Managerial Revolution and that many of its predictions failed but one. It seemed Germany was going to lead Europe and Japan was going to master East Asia. Even if Burnham had miscalculated a few things, the geographic picture he drew was correct.   Orwell writes about three great empires ruling the earth and each of which is controlled by a self-elected oligarchy. The confusion over where to draw their frontiers was going to continue for some time, while the third of the empires, China was not a real picture by then, there was an unmistakable drift happening and it was gaining pace with every new scientific discovery. So, what Orwell is trying to point out is that the scientific discoveries expected to take humanity ahead were taking it backward.   He makes this point clearer in the last three paragraphs. While it was roughly easier to imagine where the world was moving, the atomic bomb had blurred the picture of a beautiful future. Before the dust could settle in Hiroshima, it was known that a demon was born which will control the focus of power in the future.

With the coming of the airplanes, it was understood that frontiers were abolished. However, these same weapons created new and dangerous frontiers with their devastating capabilities. Radio was no more the means of cooperation but insulated one country from the other. Erosion that began with these advancements became complete with the release of the atomic bomb and now there were no more frontiers to be scaled. The bomb had ripped the exploited classes of their power to revolt and at the same time, those who had the bomb brought them on a level of equality in terms of military power. Orwell’s predictions may seem pessimistic to some. However, too much military power confined in the hands of few can be dangerous. Orwell has highlighted this several times in his essays. Technological advancements have changed things a little worldwide but the fundamental picture Orwell and Wells drew remains true and became obvious in the case of Iraq and Tibet.

It is not difficult to imagine that man can cause his devastation to the extent that some other species will take over the world. This notion does not seem so unfamiliar when you visit the ruins of those German cities. H. G. Wells kept trying to warn people against this phenomenon for long. Orwell too highlights these scientific and technological advancements as a double-edged sword that whichever end you   handle it from or whatever it achieves, whether war or peace, will not be beneficial. In the end, he writes, that peace achieved by virtue of atomic bombs and battleships is not peace and in its shadow lurks fear. In all those years, the world had not drifted towards anarchy but towards the reintroduction of slavery. Those slave empires of history could become a reality again. Orwell highlights the ideological implications of Burnham’s theory that this kind of world view, social structure, and beliefs which are only possible in a state that cannot be conquered and remains engaged in a  cold war with its neighbors. While the atomic bomb, if it could be mass-produced, would have taken us back to the barbaric era, on the other hand, it could have meant the end of national sovereignty and that of a centralized police state. It is a rare and costly object, it is more likely to put an end to large scale wars by the fear it induces but then the peace it can coerce is not peace but a threat bigger than war itself.

One important theme in Orwell’s essay is the erosion of power in the hands of the people. However, there are other themes too like science as a double-edged sword which  Orwell highlights and the third is the rise of a new locus of power. He keeps talking of the drift and these new trends that were being shaped by these technological advances. However, one important thing that people fail to notice is how much things have drifted from their hands with these advances whether it was an airplane, a battleship or the atomic bomb itself. Even other advancements, scientific and technological that followed benefitted government or the other large bodies, private and public but not people and society. Years later than Orwell wrote his essay, his words sound truer than ever today.

https://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb

Abhijeet Pratap is a passionate blogger with seven years of experience in the field. Specializing in business management and digital marketing, he has developed a keen understanding of the intricacies of these domains. Through his insightful articles, Abhijeet shares his knowledge, helping readers navigate the complexities of modern business landscapes and digital strategies.

Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World

George Orwell and the origin of the term ‘cold war’

Oxford Dictionaries

• By Katherine Connor Martin
• October 24 th 2015

On 19 October 1945, George Orwell used the term cold war in his essay “ You and the Atom Bomb ,” speculating on the repercussions of the atomic age which had begun two months before when the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. In this article, Orwell considered the social and political implications of “a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbors.”

This wasn’t the first time the phrase cold war was used in English (it had been used to describe certain policies of Hitler in 1938), but it seems to have been the first time it was applied to the conditions that arose in the aftermath of World War II. Orwell’s essay speculates on the geopolitical impact of the advent of a powerful weapon so expensive and difficult to produce that it was attainable by only a handful of nations, anticipating “the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them,” and concluding that such a situation is likely “to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a ‘ peace that is no peac e’.”

Within years, some of the developments anticipated by Orwell had emerged. The Cold War (often with capital initials) came to refer specifically to the prolonged state of hostility, short of direct armed conflict, which existed between the Soviet bloc and Western powers after the Second World War. The term was popularized by the American journalist Walter Lippman, who made it the title of a series of essays he published in 1947 in response to U.S. diplomat George Kennan’s ‘Mr. X’ article, which had advocated the policy of “ containment .” To judge by debate in the House of Commons the following year (as cited by the Oxford English Dictionary ), this use of the term Cold War was initially regarded as an Americanism: ‘The British Government … should recognize that the ‘cold war’, as the Americans call it, is on in earnest, that the third world war has, in fact, begun.” Soon, though, the term was in general use.

The end of the Cold War was prematurely declared from time to time in the following decades—after the death of Stalin, and then again during the détente of the 1970s—but by the time the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the Cold War era was clearly over. American political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously posited that “what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such,” with the global ascendancy of Western liberal democracy become an inevitability.

A quarter of a century later, tensions between Russia and NATO have now ratcheted up again, particularly in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014; commentators have begun to speak of a “ New Cold War .” The ideological context has changed, but once again a few great powers with overwhelming military might jockey for global influence while avoiding direct confrontation. Seventy years after the publication of his essay, the dynamics George Orwell discussed in it are still recognizable in international relations today.

A version of this article first appeared on the OxfordWords blog. 

Image Credit: “General Douglas MacArthur, UN Command CiC (seated), observes the naval shelling of Incheon from the USS Mt. McKinley, September 15, 1950.” Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons .

Katherine Connor Martin is Head of US Dictionaries at Oxford University Press.

• Linguistics
• Online products

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Related posts:

Recent Comments

Orwell always surprises us. He was and still is a genius.

Comments are closed.

brown girl reads books

Of books and art, you and the atomic bomb – george orwell.

Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate? In that case we are back where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.

Orwell examines the repercussions of the atomic bomb and its proliferation in his essay and states, quite strongly that the very nature of man is that of violence and the possession of a powerful weapon like the atomic bomb only spells certain doom.

When weapons of violence are not ‘democratic’ (unlike rifles and handguns), he opines, the agency of the suppressed class diminishes even further. The concentration of power is limited to corporations and countries, not people and communities – leading to a neo-autocracy. Any dissent would ha ve to exist and be expressed with the acute knowledge that mere expression could be identified, penalized and obliterated. Democracy will not exist in such a state, freedom of expression will not prevail, and calls for help will fall on the deaf, rich and powerful ears of despotic patricians feeding on the fear of the people they are supposed to protect. 

What Orwell warns us against is not the inevitable destruction of humankind but the gradual corrosion of the very spirit that makes us humans.

Share this:

One thought on “ you and the atomic bomb – george orwell ”.

Where can i get this book? (Preferably as ebook)

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Artist- Illustrator

Appalachia + AGI + Automattic

Just expressing.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar