I just read Animal Farm and I loved it. But I got some questions.

Submitted by Prize_Effort_4478 t3_zraku3 in books

1.Do you think snowball really came back to Animal Farm to harass other animals after being expelled by Napoleon?

2.About those executed animals. Do you think the guilt they confessed are real?

For 1st question, I think snowball disappeared for good and never came back to Animal Farm to conspire with other animals.

For 2nd question, I think the author never suggested in the book that these executed animals really did those crimes or their confessions are made under duress.

My theory is that, Napoleon persuade those animals in private to admit their crimes honestly and they would be spared(although this part was not mentioned in the book). But at the meeting, when these animals confessed, Napoleon went back his words and executed all the guilty animals, and made the examples for other animals not to overthrow Napoleon's regime.

90

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

wjbc t1_j12k8o6 wrote

Well, Snowball is based on Leon Trotsky, who was exiled from the U.S.S.R. and later assassinated in Mexico City by a Soviet agent. So no, I don't think he is to blame for anything that happens later. I think he was likely killed off screen.

The trial and execution of animals is based on Moscow show trials instigated by Stalin and directed against "Trotskyists." The defendants were widely thought to have confessed under duress, particularly when one defendant repudiated his confession and then changed his mind the next day after suffering a dislocated shoulder and other physical trauma.

So yes, Napoleon is a liar. He's based on Stalin.

128

Jampine t1_j13ereb wrote

Interesting tidbit: the original Animal Farm animated movie was co-funded by the CIA.

Orwell was a socialist, but after seeing how the USSR went, he started writing about how people can twist the goals of communism, and turn it into an authoritatian hellscape.

46

wjbc t1_j13ov1n wrote

Orwell was an anti-Stalinist socialist — essentially a Trotskyist, or at least allied with Trotskyists. He saw what Stalinists were like while fighting Franco in the Spanish Civil War. The Stalinists fought the Trotskyists harder than they fought Franco.

Then Orwell saw millions of Englishmen fall for Stalin after WW2, when times were desperate in England. Orwell was genuinely afraid Stalinists would rise to power in England. And Stalinists did infiltrate the highest levels of government in the U.K. It wasn’t until the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 that public opinion in the U.K. firmly turned against Stalin.

40

BigCommieMachine t1_j145f9q wrote

I think the book is about human nature and how easily power corrupts. You start off with good intention and some power because somebody has got to be in charge. But you keep seeking more power until you forgot what you set out to do in the first place.

It is just more upsetting in communism because at least in capitalism that was the goal in the first place.

9

Joe_Doe1 t1_j16z4l0 wrote

I would agree. They set out to overthrow a tyrannical hierarchy, replacing it with a more just society where all animals are equal. Soon, they become tyrannical themselves, and a new hierarchy develops where some animals are more equal than others.

People see it as pessimistic, but I see it as realistic.

4

Great_Hamster t1_j1bx7wc wrote

The goal in capitalism is freedom from feudalist and mercantilist restrictions on trade and profession. Where you getting this other thing?

2

ithsoc t1_j14wuog wrote

> the original Animal Farm animated movie was co-funded by the CIA.

Tons of literature was funded and directed by the CIA beginning in the early 1950s.

The CIA were some of the principal orchestrators of the entire Iowa Writers Workshop program that steered literature away from material concepts and into a more postmodern framework where objectivity was not valued and individualistic feelings were centered.

4

bonanbeb t1_j138jd9 wrote

This is interesting, I also finished the book but wasn't aware it was mirroring historic events. So, did Molly actually leave or was she likely killed too?

5

JamJarre t1_j13s810 wrote

The rabbit hole runs deep with the historical parallels in this book.

Characters:

  • Boxer is the working class, betrayed by the pigs / Stalin. He does everything he's meant to do loyally but they still turn him into glue

  • The four "young pigs" who are killed are likely the top soviets killed during Stalin's Great Purge (Bukharin is the only one I remember)

  • Mr Jones is Tsar Nicholas

  • Mollie, the horse who leaves because she can no longer get ribbons and sugar cubes, represents the Russian aristocracy who fled after the Revolution

  • Moses, with his fairytale talk of "sugarcandy mountain" is the Russian Orthodox Church

  • Napoleon's pack of dogs are the KGB

  • Old Major is Lenin, whose ideals were corrupted by his successor Napoleon (Stalin). As mentioned in another comment, Snowball is Trotsky - driven out for ideological differences and later turned into an enemy of the state

  • The neighbouring farms are the Western powers. Frederick is Hitler - a leader who initially seems aligned with the farm but, it turns out, is betraying it (in real life Operation Barbarossa, in the book the fake money). Pilkington is probably Churchill.

  • Mr Whymper is a bit harder, but I think likely to be the kind of useful idiots / tankies that helped spread the soviet agenda in Western countries during the Cold War

Events:

  • The hens refusing to give up their eggs is the Ukrainian revolt against collectivism

  • The windmill represents Stalin's "five year plan", along with its subsequent failure that leads to famine.

  • The Order of the Green Banner is the Order of Lenin

  • Frederick / Hitler's attack on the farm is the German invasion of Russia in WW2. It's repulsed, bloodily, just like the USSR threw back the Nazis in places like Stalingrad and Leningrad

The only one I never worked out is the cat. She talks about the revolution supportively but doesn't do any work, and is later found to be playing both sides. I'm not sure if she represents a specific person, or a class.

55

wjbc t1_j140wxd wrote

The cat represents the portion of the Russian upper class, intelligentsia, and bureaucracy that survived the revolution by pretending to support it. She was pampered by the Empire and would prefer to return to the old regime, but she’s an expert at manipulation and deception so she survives in the new regime.

28

bonanbeb t1_j13tgyu wrote

Wow, this is so comprehensive. Thank you, it really shows the book in a truer light.

9

Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_j141j57 wrote

This book needs a sequel. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Russian history ~1950-1990 to write it, but it sure seems like the ghost of Napoleon has returned.

6

The_Chums_of_Chance t1_j13b6ut wrote

She leaves. She doesn't want to give up her comforts. It mirrors the bourgeoisie, who fled Russia after the Revolution.

20

wjbc t1_j13pej5 wrote

1984 imagines an English form of Stalinism. But Animal Farm is a direct allegory of Stalin’s rise to power in Russia.

7

Randolpho t1_j12k721 wrote

  1. Supposed attacks by Snowball were propaganda created by Napoleon to keep the other animals in line. Snowball never actually returned.

  2. The hens also never confessed. Their supposed confession and defection was propaganda. It’s plausible but I think never confirmed that they were sold as food to Frederick

31

OneLongjumping4022 t1_j12jplh wrote

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

30

Prize_Effort_4478 OP t1_j13cvkl wrote

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

6

Fake_Human_Being t1_j13jlux wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25

Jampine t1_j13nxd2 wrote

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

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

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

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

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

5

Fake_Human_Being t1_j13q2wl wrote

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

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

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

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

7

JamJarre t1_j13sht8 wrote

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

7

Prize_Effort_4478 OP t1_j17q58a wrote

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

3

Seevalk t1_j13kjl3 wrote

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

9

rfpelmen t1_j13i3o7 wrote

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

2

Seevalk t1_j1302f4 wrote

The book is an allegory about Stalin's regime under communism.

27

creedular t1_j12zw7p wrote

1: LOL history

2: LOL history

The story is allegory, not fiction.

The communist regime under Stalin was an absolute travesty, the same is true with Mao. Socialism is a good ideal to aspire to, but the dangers Orwell talks about in his books is authoritarianism, left or right, it’s all bad.

22

Razorbackalpha t1_j13ef3h wrote

Yep Orwell expands on it a lot more in 1984

8

creedular t1_j13ofby wrote

The dude was a legend. Everything he did, everything he saw. The messages in time he left us. I’m privileged to have read him.

Little bit hammered rn

Still true though

GL :)

6

Razorbackalpha t1_j13qmih wrote

Yeah I'm giving my 14 year old brother both animal farm and 1984 and I'm excited to see what he gets out of them

3

GrudaAplam t1_j12na1o wrote

That was propaganda. Animal Farm is an allegory of Stalin's Russia.

12

SectorEducational460 t1_j146jp3 wrote

  1. No. It was meant to represent Trotsky and considering Orwell was quite sympathetic to them since he was in a Trotsky brigade when he was in Spain. I doubt he made it that snowball came back. Rather it was used by Napoleon (Stalin) to use force, and restrict the animals control. Considering that Orwell viewed Stalin negatively, and paranoid this does seem to be the implications.

  2. I doubt it. Be aware that Orwell was captured by Stalin supporters in Spain, and developed this animosity towards those who venerated Stalin. So I doubt the animals actually did that stuff, and it was more consolidation of power done by Napoleon in his paranoia.

I should specify the book isn't anti communist but rather anti stalinist. Orwell was a socialist, and Trotsky sympathizer.

7

Uptons_BJs t1_j12nrrp wrote

So one of the big weaknesses of Animal Farm in my opinion is how specific the allegory is - It is almost a one to one relationship.

​

You know how often late night talk show hosts crack very specific jokes about the events de jour? Like if you didn't read the headlines that day you won't get the joke? That's Animal Farm, where almost everything in the story is a specific reference to events in the Soviet Union following the october revolution.

​

For instance, the executed animals' confessed guilt? That's a reference to the great purge, where the NKVD would routinely snatch up people and tortured them until they would confess to the most absurd shit.

​

And that's why I don't rate Animal Farm as highly as many others do here. It just isn't a timeless book, it is a very, very thin allegory with a ton of references to specific events and people. Hell, most teachers teaching the book start with a quick primer on the october revolution and who the people the various animals are a reference to are. Becuase you practically HAVE TO get the references to enjoy the book.

6

ChefButtes t1_j12tjh6 wrote

I have read the book a few times and am not super educated on history, but am fairly familiar with the idea of a tyrannical government and I thought it was fairly obvious all that stuff was just propaganda.

18

SideEyeFeminism t1_j13b1kt wrote

I enjoyed Animal Farm a lot, but that’s because it was my 8th grade History and Language Arts teacher’s tool to literally introduce us to the concept of political based allegory and as long as you give the prep of that type of rundown, it really is a very good Baby’s First Allegory.

5

JamJarre t1_j13slqz wrote

I think the book is perfectly enjoyable as a parable without knowing specifically that it's about Stalin's rise to power.

3

oddfeett t1_j13kddp wrote

The point of it is fairly obvious without any more than a passing knowledge of the events that transpired. But, given that it is supposed to be a critique of those real events, I don't see how it would really be a fault of the work that it corresponds with events transpiring as it was written and blah blah blah. Anyways I don't really care for Animal Farm either.

1

_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_ t1_j13rqsc wrote

Those specific events are taught in schools (often with this book), whereas the subject of most topical jokes are not.

1

fellationelsen t1_j13arhm wrote

Your right about Napoleon, he basically made up stuff about Snowball to turn the animals against him. It's a critique of historical revisionism, basically changing the past to suit your present.

4

spunkypunkie t1_j164aeg wrote

I've read this book many times throughout my life and my biggest take away is that power corrupts and fear is a temporary motivator. I am a socialist, and I wish it weren't true but I can see throughout history that people who rose to power will do anything to hold on to it. Sociopaths rule the world because they don't care who they have to remove to be on top and stay there. Greed is the ultimate downfall of society. Also, confessions made under duress are usually false.

2

Samdens t1_j179lp0 wrote

  1. No 2. No but I think they were forced into saying they did this and this by Napoleon so that he could make an example out of them what happens if you you go against him.
2

Jack-Campin t1_j13vijl wrote

It's a rewrite of Pilgrim's Progress with the characters changed. Tubthumpingly literal allegories are a British thing.

Snowball is Trotsky so Orwell couldn't change his story.

0

SonnyCalzone t1_j15rrsr wrote

And now, of course, a listen to Pink Floyd's Animals LP is the next logical step for you :)

0

idrinkkombucha t1_j12n2t1 wrote

You know it’s not real animals right

−8