In Winston’s world, every scrap of power is reserved for the Party.  They choose for Winston and all others what they should do, how they should do it, and when.  It’s not entirely obvious that this is the case, because it looks like the people choose to follow the Party on their own.  There are no laws in Oceania.  It seems like people can do as they please.  The problem is that although the decisions often come from their own minds, their own minds are no longer actually their own.  Their minds have been corrupted by the Party.  They do what the Party wants them to do because they have been made to believe that is best.  Devices such as doublethink and crimestop lead them to believe fully in the lies of the Party.  Even when people like Winston believe they are rebelling, they are actually under close supervision, and their actions are easily stopped.

In fact, this attempted rebellion of Winston’s is what makes up the whole book, and it tells us a whole lot about power; at least what Orwell believes about it.  Winston begins with thoughtcrime.  In his mind, he realizes that things aren’t right, and he wants to change that.  When begins trying to undermine the Party, he does so simply by doing things he knows they wouldn’t approve of.  He buys a diary and an old fashioned pen to write in it with.  As his ‘rebellion’ grows, his biggest crime would likely be his renting an unmonitored room for the purpose of having a love affair.  Winston isn’t even sure if the Party will ever know what he is doing, but he believes that simple disobedience is the only way to make a statement.  Although there are no actual laws, there are ways of knowing what the Party won’t like.  It seems that the number one indicator that something is probably wrong is if it has any connections with the past.  The junk shop was very old fashioned, and that’s where both Winston’s first, and his largest acts of rebellion took place, as well as many others, including his purchase of the paperweight.

Winston isn’t stupid.  His actions are not exactly a bad way to rebel, but he simply does not have enough knowledge to know how unlikely his plan was to work.  He didn’t know that Mr. Charrington was a member of the thought police.  He didn’t know there was a hidden telescreen in his secret room.  He didn’t know that O’Brien and the rumored Brotherhood were both fake.  Most importantly, he didn’t know that the Ministry of Love would torture him to any necessary extent in order to alter his sense of logic.  Winston’s rebellion didn’t work.  Despite its extreme subtlety (so subtle, in fact, that he admits it might never make any real difference), it was still discovered and suppressed.  It failed because the Party had already acquired enough power such that it could stop any attempt to remove that power.

This is what Orwell really has to say in 1984.  He knows that power is dangerous.  He knows that those who are given power can easily become corrupted by it.  If left unchecked, this corruption will lead them to take more power, and this extra power will lead to more corruption.  It is an endless cycle, which can easily get out of hand.  All it takes for this cycle to continue endlessly is for those involved to admit that what they want is power, simply for the sake of power.  At a certain point, there is no turning back.  Through a possibly nonexistent, yet immortal leader, the collection of power is able to grow eternally, because it had reached a point where nothing can compete with it.  Even when people like Winston rebel, the Party has enough power to literally change his very mind.  Not only will he obey the Party, but he will want to obey the Party, because he loves Big Brother.

George Orwell, in his beast fable Animal Farm portrays the conversion of an agrarian based society to a totalitarianistic dystopia through the manipulation of animals. An example of this conversion is when Napoleon begins to abuse Boxer physically and mentally. With the help of Napoleon and Squealer , Boxer expunged all forms of self reasoning and lived his life based on the wants and needs of the pigs, helping them achieve power and corrupt themselves. The dogs were a big part of Napoleon’s rise to power. Born and raised by Napoleon himself, they were manipulated to terrorize all animals who stood in the pigs way through brutality. Lastly, the sheep play a very important role on the effect Napoleon had on the other animals. Through loud, obnoxious, and repetitive chants, the sheep distracted all animals from problems and silenced them. They also spread Napoleon message in a method that was remembered by all animals and could not be argued with. Through his exploitation of animals and corrupt ways, Napoleon managed to create a utopia for himself causing a dystopia for all others.

Boxer is the muscle and spirit that drives Animal Farm. For his lack of intelligence and robust physique, he suffers massive mental and physical abuse from the pigs and himself. He is manipulated to work harder then the others and is rewarded with a tragic butchery. He has no understanding of government, nor can he formulate an opinion, therefore he solely does and thinks whatever Napoleon tells him to. An example of Boxer’s dearth of self reason is “ His two slogans ‘I will work harder’ and ‘Napoleon is always right’ seemed to him a sufficient answer to all problems”(75). Orwell shows that Boxer has no opinion and does not put an effort to formulate his own thoughts, but instead accepts anything Napoleon says. Boxer worked days and nights, always acknowledging his slogans, until he had an accident that renders his muscles useless. In the words of Benjamin, “Do you understand what that means? They are taking boxer to the knackers!”(123).After all of Boxer’s strenuous work and determination he is eventually killed, and sold to the glue factory in return for whisky. While Boxer worked to occupy himself, he drastically helped the industrialization of the farm, which provided Napoleon power. After his service had been done, he had not only given the pigs the power to use a windmill, but he also unintentionally provided them with whisky. All in all, Boxer’s hard work only assisted the pigs in establishing a more totalitarianistic society, and accommodated them with alcohol which augmented their corrupt ways.

The dogs are the most feared animals on Animal Farm. They were raised by Napoleon himself and used as his personal band of bodyguards. Since following Napoleon’s orders was their only purpose in life they did his dirty work and persuaded animals to agree with Napoleon through fear and brutality. As Orwell says, “…they were puppies whom Napoleon had taken away from their mother and rear privately… they kept close to Napoleon and wagged their tails the same way other dogs did towards Mr.Jones (68). Not only does the present the dogs’s separation from their mother, but it also presents the fact that they treat Napoleon as their master, therefore all animals are not equal. The dogs are oblivious to The Commandments and morals as Orwell writes, “he uttered a high pitched whimper. Immediately the dogs bounded forward, seized four of the pigs by the ear, and dragged them, squealing with pain and terror to Napoleon’s feet” (92). These actions described by the dogs show they truly are minions of Napoleon and will do anything to keep him in power. Overall, the dogs have no positive effect on the Animal Farm and only help Napoleon lead his totalitarianistic campaign of terror.

The sheep are a propagandist force that advocate corruption, misunderstanding, and manipulation throughout Animal Farm. They use simple, loud, and repetitious chants to silence the animals from speaking out against Napoleon. The sheep also diverted attention from Snowball’s speeches as Orwell points out, “ It was noticed they were especially liable to break into ‘ Four legs good, two legs bad’ at crucial moments in Snowball’s speeches (65). This type of outbreak increases Napoleon’s control over the animals support because they can not gain enough information to support Snowball, or even remember what he had to say. A turning point in Animal Farm exposed itself when the sheep use their modified chant, as depicted by Orwell when he says, “’Four legs good, two legs better!’ It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep quieted down, the chance to utter a protest had passed” (133). Not only does this quote show how the sheep were used as crowd silencers, but it also portrays Napoleon’s manipulative powers, as he was able to change the chant and receive no protest. The sheep act as the pigs one-way messengers and prevent protest which assists Napoleon to his progression towards a totalitarianistic society.

Animal Farm is truly a tragedy due to the malevolent and greedy events that undertook. Through hard labor, fear, brutality, propaganda, and manipulation, Napoleon was able to demolish a agrarian based Utopia and fabricate an industrial dystopia. Having an un-intelligent and absent minded population under his control, he was able to achieve his personal Utopia with little protest and obstruction from his goal. Having achieved his objective, Napoleon become the figure he once set out to destroy, only this time around he was living in a Utopia, while all others lived in a dystopia once more.

For instance, if the company you work for is laying off 500 workers, and you (unfortunately) are one of the formerly employed. Your manager (who’s keeping his job) says that the company is downsizing…that’s double speak. They may also call it “headcount adjustment” or “realignment”. If it just wants to replace some workers with new ones from a temp agency, they say that they’re “outsourcing”. Just more double speak.

If you can’t find another job within your field, or chosen profession, and the only employer that would take you is the sanitation department, and the only job you could land in that fine establishment was as a garbage collector, you might be embarrassed to tell your friends about your new job, so you tell them you are a “Sanitation Engineer” …that’s double speak. Housewives, who are no doubt important, are sometimes referred to as “Domestic Engineers”. Or “Domestic Goddesses”.

When your girlfriend, or boyfriend tells you that you both need to start seeing other people, that means you’re being dumped,…that’s double speak. If your friends tell you that your new girlfriend is “not ugly”, that means that she’s not exactly very pretty either…that’s double speak. If you tend to use profanity a lot, or drop the F bomb here and there, it’s said that you have very “colorful” language…that’s double speak.

Here’s one. An example of political double speak. “I Actually Did Vote for the $87 Billion, Before I voted Against It”. That’s an attempt to deny that they voted for something that they now say they oppose. That, by the way, was John Kerry. When a politician makes a mistake, it’s not really a mistake, it’s a “Teachable moment”, but what they’re really saying “yeah, I did it. It was stupid and I did it”. And of course “I learn from my mistakes”. When he is caught doing something wrong, or lying, he calls it a “misstep”. If we ask him for details in the case during an investigation, he tells us that the details of the case are “classified” which really means he is trying to hide the truth.

When car dealerships sells used cars, they’re not used cars, they’re “pre-owned”. The advertiser is not exactly lying. But he’s trying to make the words “used car” seem better somehow, as if the car was very good and gave good service to its previous owner as it will to you too. Double speak may seem funny in some cases, but it’s also pervasive and little by little it  begins to change the meaning of words. Peop0le who engage in it know what they’re doing. That’s much more serious that it’s at first perceived.

George Orwell saw it coming. And he’s probably watching from the grave.

 George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four tells of a ubiquitous society where “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” and where there is no freedom from the prying eyes of the totalitarian government. While this novel was intended to be a pessimistic warning against the dangers of authoritarianism, the absence of a private realm in North Korea is sadly, a reality.

Cover of Nineteen Eighty-Four

In democratic societies such as Australia, it is easy to take for granted the right we have to, most of the time, do what we want within the walls of our own home. The notion of government surveillance and monitoring may even seem absurd as we have access to basic civil liberties such as the freedom of speech, movement and association.  However, there are countries that do not tolerate these basic liberties and instead, permeate into every possible aspect of society. North Korea is the ultimate epitome of the type of society Orwell was deterring.

According to NGOs such as Amnesty International, North Korea is ranked as one of the world’s worst abusers of human rights. Whilst precise figures and information are hard to gather, the US Department of State’s 2009 report on North Korea conjures a bleak image of a demoralised society. From this report, it is possible to ascertain that the government places controls of people’s private lives, particularly in the mode of communication. Internet access is not easily accessible and even if it is, censorship is strife.  Private telephone lines can be tapped and international phone calls are available only under restricted circumstances. Freedom of information and press is not upheld either.

Hypocritically, while the general population of the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) are deprived of their privacy, Kim Jong-Il has his own private world and not much of his personal life is revealed.  The reverence of Kim Jong-Il and his father Kim Il-Sung, the founder of this communist state could be described as cultish. Even while there are reports of Kim Jong-Il’s failing health and speculations about his successor, any semblance of Kim’s frail health or physical weakness is desperately avoided.

Political dissension is heavily suppressed and constant censorship means that North Korean citizens must exercise caution with regards to their statements or associations. The use of capital punishment continues in North Korea and the accused are not granted privacy as their lives are taken from them.  Public executions occur which are not only humiliating but designed to instil fear into the spectators and to deter them from committing the same “crimes.” The prevalent use of this sanction endures to this day and the most recent incident occurred in January 2011 where two citizens were executed in front of a crowd of 500. Their crime? Being in possession of pamphlets from South Korea that were deemed propagandistic and a threat to North Korean superiority.

Image via Wikipedia

The atrocity does not end there, with families being punished in generations for the supposed wrongs of their predecessors. One of the most famous North Korean defectors to the USA, Chol-Hwan Kang, spent his childhood within the walls of a political prison following accusations and charges laid against his grandfather for treason. Families often form the basis of our private realm as this is where we can go to be loved, nurtured and sheltered. Yet this institution is under threat.  

Religion is a key area the government monitors, and as an official communist state, organised religion is generally suppressed, except in the cases of worshipping and praising their “dear leader.”  Open Doors has ranked the DPRK as the worst persecutor of Christians in the world, and many people are forced to retreat to underground churches or practices their faith in the utmost secrecy. For many, faith or absence of faith thereof is a private matter, but the right to practice religion should not be taken away.

 The absence of a private realm for individuals in North Korea should be used as a basis for the international community to condemn the government’s blatant disregard for basic human rights. While the matter is complex due to the principle of self-determination, the wider community must raise their voice against the ill-treatment of fellow human beings. It is to be acknowledged that North Korea is a difficult player in global politics yet international sanctions should be imposed and criticisms voiced.

Although Orwell’s purpose in writing Nineteen Eighty-Four may purely be regarded as a political manifesto, his fears of totalitarianism were not unfounded. Just as the citizens of Dystopia are deprived of their private realm, North Korea indeed parallels with this fictional state where oppression, not freedom prevails. 

Animal Farm, written by George Orwell, is one of the best and greatest anti-totalitarian novels. It retells the story of the Russian revolution and the rise of the soviet communism in the form of animal. In the opening scene, Old Major, a prize-winning boar, died with his inspiring speech to overthrow the farmer. This then compels all the animals in the farm to revolt and get rid of the old farmer. However, the three pigs, Snowball, Napoleon, and Squealer established themselves as the upper-ruling class. The struggle for predominance between Snowball and Napoleon showed the tyrannical demon in Napoleon’s mind. Napoleon embodies the character of Joseph Stalin, who is a cruel dictator that utilized his military power to force people into promulgating him. I would save this book because the theme of a single dictator that favors communism is prevalent throughout the history of mankind. The novel incorporates the censorship in the media to emphasize the prevailing totalitarian dictatorship. All animals in the farm trusted the elite pigs and withheld the 7 commandments that supported the equality among them; however, the manipulative pigs changed it into one single quote: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This quote alone says it all; it shows how the government can turn one idea into a completely distinct idea. Therefore, one can learn about how the history had been written and to never make the same mistakes that the past had established.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”- Lord Acton.  In the novel Animal Farm, George Orwell translates the industrial communism of the 20th century to a small farm in England.  On that farm, the old order of all work is thrown out the window with the words of a wise boar.  A revolution occurs, and the animals take over “Manor farm” and change it to “Animal Farm”.  The power unjustly held by one animal alters all original thoughts of equality.  Equal society is intended, but the opposite is the outcome.

            Old Major tried to transform a pattern of inequality into a society of equals.  This leadership in rebellion leads some to believe he is the Leninist figure in the Manor Farm society.  The old boar encouraged them to rebel against their tyrannous leader and gain freedom.  “Only get rid of man, and the produce of our labour will be our own. Only overnight we could become rich and free.”  Major uses ethos and pathos to appeal to the overworked dim-witted animals: speaking of their slaughtered children, and using the credibility of his age.  In the end, though, it was up to the leaders that came after him to carry out the principles he laid down.

            Pigs are the intellectually dominant species on Animal Farm.  For lack of a better idea, the other animals let them take over the decision making for the farm.  Two prominent leaders have big ideas for the farm.  One, Snowball, believes the farm invest time and energy into a windmill, to ultimately make less work for the animals, and make the farm more efficient.  The other, Napoleon, believes the farm should prepare itself for another attack from their former master and his human companions.  These two stubborn pigs clash and Napoleon kicks out Snowball.  Everything goes downhill from their.  Over time, the seven commandment established at the original revolution are broken, but disguised with small detail changes.  The values on which Animal Farm was created were disregarded, and for that, the blame for the downfall of the farm should be brought on Napoleon.  The pursuit of power clouded his judgment.

            The need for power drove Napoleon to break all of his laws, which even went to the extent of murder.  As he broke his rules, he changed them.  Napoleon challenged the memories of the animals, claiming the rules had always been that way.  But, it looked as if he had a plan from the beginning.  He manipulated nine puppies from their birth to be the muscle and intimidation of his scheme.  Also, before forcing Snowball out of the farm, Napoleon studied Snowballs plans for construction of the windmill, and put them into effect later on.  To show further just how much Napoleon changed things, He even switched the name of the farm to Manor.  At that point, all that was ever Animal farm was over.

            The key to success on Animal Farm would have been to follow the rules.  Those rules paved the way to a perfect society full of happy animals.  The urge for more power changed those rules, and killed the dream that was Animal farm.

As the blurb says, “the other animals find themselves hopelessly ensnared as one for of tyranny is gradually replaced by another”, which gives a brief summary of the book, but also helps with foreshadowing the events and tragedy to come. The animals are first under the cruelty of Man, who “is the only creature that consumes without producing” but then is gradually shifted to servitude under the pigs, who are, “the cleverest of all the animals”, additional foreshadowing for their rise to power. Similarly, in Orwell’s time, he questions whether the replacement of one ideology with another is progress; indeed, he notes in the preface that when his book is in the process of being accepted for publishing, that there is a self-imposed censorship by the intellect of his time, who are playing to the political message of the time, which was that Russia was not to be criticised for its communist and totalitarian regime.

Similarly, near the end of the book, Orwell notes that “pig to man…but already it was impossible to say which was which”, the close proximity of features between swine and man already carries negative connotations, but we also see that they too, within the novel have not produced anything worthwhile, and instead have consumed everything to the point where the other animals are almost starving. “The lower animals on Animal Farm did more work and received less food than any animals in the country”, gone is the freedom and abundance as dreamed of by the other animals, and instead is the same cruelty and slavery imposed onto them; Pig akin to Man. This echoes the same type of glorification for the Russian Empire and how they are ruling their country, which, only because they were Allies with Britain, that censorship mediated by the upper class restricts all texts which criticise the way Russia manages its country; not very well. The parallel between Orwell’s book and his time shows that he is decrying the subjectivity and emotion involved in judging one’s intentions and actions.

Orwell emphasises that it is this subjectivity that causes ethical and moral issues. Squealer, who explains everything to the other animals, is a medium through which they are controlled, “the others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white”; a symbol for the censorship on journalism, media, and literature during his time. He also mentions this in greater detail in another preface, which was due to be printed for another edition of the book. “On our return to England, we found numerous sensible…observers believing the most fantastic accounts of conspiracy…which the press reported, which of course, was propaganda by the Russian Government to cover for the fact that they were just throwing people randomly into jail to “set an example for dissidents”.

Lastly, the namesake of the book, “Animal Farm”, is the symbol for which all animals are free, and lead their own lives. Unfortunately, at the end of the novel, it is reverted to “Major Farm”, which was its original name under the rule of Man. Hence, Orwell’s criticism of both his country and Russia rings true, mainly through the recurring comparison between swine and men.

It is possible to think without language, every creature on earth does it. But to put meaning to our thoughts, and gain the ability to share them with others, requires a complex system of symbolism to represent and articulate the internal images of our brains. Susanne Langer, in her essay “Language and Thought”, describes the difference between signs, recognizable by all living inhabitants of our world, and symbols as “a sign causes us to think or act in face of the thing signified, whereas a symbol causes us to think about the thing symbolized” (Langer 55). Understanding this critical difference aided me in my own curiosity of understanding the separation between human speech and the more primitive means of communication employed by animals.

Helen Keller, a crucial case study, exemplifies the intimate relationship of thought and language. Through her unique perspective, we gain insight on the question: can thought exist without language? If so, in what form? In her essay “The Day Language Came into My Life”, she describes her life before the moment when she connected the hand motions of sign language that spelled the word ‘water’ and the “wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand” (Keller 45) as being “at sea in a dense fog… without compass or sounding- line and had no way of knowing how near the harbor was” (Keller 44). As someone who cannot remember a time when I didn’t have language as a tool, trying to imagine this inescapable claustrophobia is dizzying, frustrating, and ultimately impossible. I tried to think without words, to see if I could imagine what it must have been like for Ms. Keller. My head was alive with images, but the incessant need of my inner-monologue to put words to these pictures was, in the end, unconquerable.

Orwell takes the connection of language and thought even further, proposing the notion that if you control a language, you can control, to a large degree, the thoughts of the people who speak it. In “the Principals of Newspeak”, he says, “The purpose of Newspeak was… to make all other modes of thought impossible” (246). By laying out detailed and specific rules for his made up language, he created a bland and emotionless form of communication in which exchanging detailed and complex ideas becomes difficult. Though fictionalized, this employment of language resembles the way modern politicians utilize carefully crafted sentences to bend the public to their will. Instead of the “Open Logging, Tree-cutting Initiative”, we have the “Healthy Forest Initiative”. Instead of the “Standardization of Education to the Point of Eliminating Teacher Creativity Act”, we get the “No Child Left Behind Act”. These clever uses of language put the concepts described by Orwell to use by making topics that might otherwise be controversial sound undeniably good. Who wouldn’t want healthy forests? And who wants any child to be left behind?

The English language takes root in a multi-layered history of origins and influences that range everywhere from Germanic tribal languages, to Norse, to French, to Latin and beyond. Throughout its history, English has undergone dramatic transformations and wholesale changes. These developments continue today, leading to a great debate over “Standard English”, what is considered correct, and what is not.
 
For my own part, I was rarely taught formal “correct” English directly in public schools. Instead, I was forced to rely on ascertaining my knowledge from the various books, movies, and television programs I enjoyed. I did, however, get the sense during my education that this “correct” form of English existed. There were times when I was correct, and then there were the big red marks on my essays that indicated when I wasn’t. More so than ever before, my feelings have now shifted away from this mode of thought- that we are either correct or that we are not- into a more arbitrary and philosophical perspective that is difficult to define.
 
Correctness is important, that much I believe, and the language cannot be allowed to roam free as it will. Were this the case, the intricate communication of our thoughts and ideas, the very purpose of language, would become impossible. We would all develop essentially our own individual languages- with our own ideas of spelling, grammar, and syntax- and would eventually become mutually unintelligible to each other. Defining the line, where correctness of a language and its freedom to continually develop meet, becomes the true, and difficult, question. Even regional and demographic dialects might disagree on what correct means. Perhaps this sense of correctness comes from historical precedence. Ideas of language standards accepted earlier in history and described by authoritative sources, such as dictionaries, lend those ideas some credibility. On the other hand, those whose ideas came later could claim that language is constantly evolving, and what was once considered correct may no longer be true.

In his essay “The Prescriptive Tradition”, David Crystal quotes Jonathan Swift, “It is better a language should not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing” (Crystal 3). For all the attempts made to thwart this change, however, none have been, thus far, successful. Language, like pop culture, is subject to the scrutiny of a large population. Changes on a broader scope are not the ward of any individual, or small group, no matter how influential. For true change (or lack thereof) to take place, it must be through the general, and often unconscious, consensus of the masses. Like one generation’s parents trying to “wish away” rock and roll, or the next trying to “wish away” rap, the inevitability of this change flows like the gravity-powered currents of a river. Trying to swim upstream results only in a slow regression and exhaustion.

As a writer striving to find the best way to utilize language, I pay attention to grammar as classically prescribed. An editor considering whether or not to entertain your prose expects a certain degree of correctness. Breaking rules simply because you don’t believe they should exist is surely the quickest way to find rejection. But good writing is not as simple as sticking strictly to the rules, but finding the best and most effective way to communicate those thoughts that reside in our heads. If sticking to the rules is the most effective way to achieve a standard academic voice, than perhaps tastefully bending, and even occasionally breaking, those same rules may be the best way to set yourself apart.

History – The Tehran and Yalta Conferences

The Tehran and Yalta Conferences are the only two wartime meetings where the Big Three met to discuss on the World War 2 plans.

The >Big Three= is:       – Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of U.S.A.)

- Joseph Stalin (Premier of the U.S.S.R.)

- Sir Winston Churchill (Prime Minister of the U.K.)

The Tehran Conference in Tehran, Iraq was held on November 28 to December 1, 1943 and was the most significant meeting of them all. The planning of >Operation Overlord= (D-Day) and the territorial border adjustments of Poland and Germany were discussed. Although Churchill opposed initially, it was decided that the invasion of France which was Nazi occupied would take place in Normandie on May 1944.

The Yalta Conference in Yalta, Ukraine was held on February 4 to 11, 1945. Many things were discussed during this meeting. Since Germany was defeated in Europe, the Big Three discussed the restoration and the liberation of Europe: freeing the Jews from the Holocaust genocide, and the economical issues that were involved. Since the war in Japan was not yet over, Roosevelt=s main goal from this conference was to get Soviet participation of the Red Army against Japan. Stalin summed that the total costs of reparations from the war in Europe would be 20 billion, and he wanted 50% of it for the Soviet Union.

The Yalta Conference is significant in planning the post World War 2 period (Cold War). The division of Germany into 4 governing countries (France, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., and the U.K.), was discussed but was never final. Many other discussions helped set the stage for the Cold War once WWII ended. Stalin obtained all of his goals by taking advantage of Roosevelt=s weak health and Britain=s declining power.

Link with Animal Farm

In Animal Farm, the uniting between the humans and the pigs represents the World War II conferences. Here, Mr Pilkington represents Britain and the other men (farmers) are the capitalists (representing the United States). Napoleon represents Joseph Stalin and the rest of the pigs are the other soviet leaders. In the end of chapter 10, Mr Pilkington and Napoleon get into an argument: AYes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials@ (Orwell 120). This argument is the fall of the union between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom with the United States and this lead to the Cold War which would be demonstrated if the novel were to continue.