George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' resonated with Ukrainian refugees | PRI.ORG
Support PRI's Global Reporting Fund. Support PRI's Global Reporting Fund.

George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' resonated with Ukrainian refugees

Home | Stories | Arts and Entertainment | Books | George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' resonated with Ukrainian refugees
email

Email to a friend

 
image
A fan made cover for George Orwell's novel. "Animal Farm" is one of Orwell's most well-known works and gained unlikely popularity with Ukrainian refugees. (Photo from Flickr user Ben Templesmith.)

After World War II, millions of Ukrainians became refugees when the Soviet Union began ethnic cleansing. George Orwell's novel "Animal Farm" became popular among Ukrainian refugees, as it reminded them of the hardships they endured under Stalinist rule.


Listen NowListen Now

While attention to George Orwell in the United States and in Hollywood of late is perhaps most focused on his novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four," it was "Animal Farm" that gained popularity among Ukrainian refugees after World War II.

As he put it in his preface to the Ukrainian translation of his novel, George Orwell wrote "Animal Farm" to destruct the "Soviet myth." This message resonated with the millions of Ukrainian in refugee camps across western Europe — displaced by the battles between Germany and the Soviet Union.

"This was right after World War II, and was very fresh in memory,” said Vitalij Keis, a 76 year-old refugee. “My family, one fifth of my family was exiled to Siberia, and we never found any trace of them."

Published in 1945, "Animal Farm" was a novel about the inequal treatment of different animals, led by the pigs, on the titular farm after the animals overthrow the oppressive farmer, Mr. Jones. Famously in the novel, one of the rules of the farm, "All animals are created equal," is replaced with, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," as the pigs become more human and the inequality worsens. The novel is a harsh allegory for Stalinist Communism.

The book's description of the mistreatment of the other animals, including famine, forced collectivization and mass arrests mirrored the hardships Ukrainian refugees faced in the Soviet Union.

Keis' niece, Andrea Chalupa, is the author of a new e-book "Orwell and the Refugees: The Untold Story of Animal Farm." She said the novel gained popularity among refugees after a Ukrainian scholar named Ihor Shevchenko read the book in 1946 and wrote Orwell requesting a Ukrainian translation.

"The message of your book resonates with me and I translated it out loud to Ukrainian refugees here, and they love it, and we want to make copies and give it out to people," Shevchenko wrote.

Orwell was apparently delighted to learn of his new audience and allowed for "Animal Farm" to be translated free of charge, refusing any royalties. Keis said, as he understands it, it was the first translation of "Animal Farm."

Orwell, a self-proclaimed Socialist, fought with the Communists in the Spanish Civil War against the Fascists. It was there that he learned the Republican faction was quite fragmented. Orwell unknowingly joined the Communist militia not led by Moscow. He and his wife were nearly killed by Stalinists during the war.

Orwell wrote, "In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated."

"Animal Farm" was added to a sort of required reading list in some displaced persons camps in West Germany, where Ukrainian refugees stayed. After telling her uncle of the novel she was working on, Keis gave Chalupa his copy of "Animal Farm" he received in the camp. She keeps it in a glass case at her parents' house.

----------------------------------------------------------

"PRI's "The World" is a one-hour, weekday radio news magazine offering a mix of news, features, interviews, and music from around the globe. "The World" is a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. More about The World.

Found in:   books   history   refugee   Russia   Ukraine   war
email

Email to a friend

 

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (1 posted)

avatar
Hirohiko 20 June, 2012 10:57:36
I guess that I'll put myself out on a limb and sggseut that professor Jacqueline Rose's response to the war in Gaza represents, to me, the most insightful commentary that I'veread. If her overarching moral understanding were universally adopted there would be no conflict in the middle east"The only abiding law for Israel in this onslaught seems to be the ethics of self-defence, and yet Israel’s defence cannot be secured by such a path and there are, it would seem, no ethics. How can such unrestrained and indiscriminate violence – a hundred, and more, dead for every Israeli, including hundreds of children – be justified? ‘We are very violent,’ the commander of the Yahalom unit observed, according to Ha’aretz. ‘We do not balk at any means to protect the lives of our soldiers.’ Another senior IDF officer was reported as commenting on the offensive so far, ‘It’s not the movie, it’s only the coming attractions,’ with a knowing smile.If it sometimes seems as if a new limit has been breached, we need to trace this language back to the creation of Israel and before, to the founding belief that Israel would be the redemption for the historic suffering, and passivity, of the Jews, a belief given new urgency by the genocide in Europe and which would lay the grounds for the ruthless dispossession of the Palestinians. At a rally in support of Israel’s war in Gaza in Trafalgar Square, one banner read: ‘We will not be victims again.’ As the rally dispersed, those of us protesting as Jews against Israel’s actions were spat at and met with cries of ‘Kapos’. The Holocaust is still the felt justification, in the midst of this new war. Israel is the fourth most powerful military nation in the world, yet it lives in a permanent state of fear, always fighting the last war.So while everyone is asking ‘Who is the aggressor?’, another equally important question is going unasked. Who claims the monopoly of suffering? Whose suffering is felt to warrant a form of state power that is above the law? Already we are being told that there will be no legal reckoning. Faced with war crimes allegations in the past, Israel has blocked all attempts by the UN to investigate its conduct and it is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court.To say this is in no way to diminish the traumatic impact of the Holocaust but to register it all the more powerfully. The effect of trauma is precisely to freeze people in time. There is a psychological dimension to this conflict that seems almost impossibly difficult to shift. In its own eyes, Israel is never the originator and agent of its own violence, and to that extent its violence is always justified. The Palestinians do not count. Even when the worst of what has been done to them is registered inside Israel, it is still the Israeli who suffers more.We are all waiting to see what Barack Obama will do. My hope is that he is ring-fencing his new appointees (Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton and, it seems, Dennis Ross) so he can intervene more forcefully to change the US’s unconditional support for Israel. But even if he were to do so early on, a single breach of any agreement by Hamas – even if, as most likely, provoked by Israel – might be enough for him to adopt Israel’s language of state security as the justification of all means. ‘As soon as anyone mentions security,’ Miri Weingarten of Physicians for Human Rights commented on a visit last year to Britain, ‘everyone stands up straight and stops thinking.’
Reply Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
total: 1 | displaying: 1 - 1

Post your comment

    Bold Italic Underline Quote

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Captcha

JOIN PRI COMMUNITIES:


Rate this article
0