There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no
There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction.
George Orwell, in his eternal sharpness, declared: “There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction.” This saying is not the idle breath of a thinker gazing at abstractions, but the cry of one who beheld the tempests of his age. For Orwell had seen the banners of tyranny raised high, and he knew that in the clash of nations and ideologies, neutrality is a mirage. There are wars where the earth itself seems to tremble, not because men clash for mere land or power, but because the very spirit of progress contends with the chains of reaction.
Consider, O listener, the fire of the twentieth century. When fascism rose like a dark tide in Europe, could one truly say it mattered not who triumphed? On one side stood Hitler, Mussolini, and their creed of racial conquest and enslavement. On the other side, faltering yet resolute, stood those who defended freedom, dignity, and the right of peoples to exist. Here Orwell’s words strike with the weight of iron: victory for reaction would have meant a world where free voices were silenced, where the torch of liberty was extinguished. Progress was fragile, yet it lived in the hearts of those who resisted, who fought, who endured. Thus, to claim that such a war made no difference would be blindness itself.
In truth, Orwell himself joined the struggle in Spain, fighting against Franco’s forces in the Spanish Civil War. There he witnessed firsthand how ideologies clash not only in the battlefield but also in the souls of men. He saw comrades fall, not for glory or wealth, but for the hope that a more just society might emerge from the ruins. In that furnace of conflict, Orwell learned that wars are not all equal—some are but the struggles of tyrants over scraps, but others decide the destiny of human freedom. In Spain, though progress was defeated, the lesson was engraved upon his heart: to abandon such struggles is to yield the world to reaction.
And yet, let us not be deceived into thinking progress always wears shining armor and reaction always bears visible chains. No, the lines may blur, and the banners may deceive. But still, if one peers with discerning eyes, one will see that wars of consequence almost always tilt one way: toward the preservation of human dignity, or toward its erosion. The wise must therefore judge carefully, lest they cloak indifference in the garb of neutrality. To pretend that “both sides are the same” is to deny the very currents of history that have delivered us from darkness into the light we now know.
Let us also recall a story older still: the Persian Wars of ancient Greece. When the armies of Xerxes swept across the Aegean, it was not merely East against West, but freedom against subjugation. At Thermopylae, a few stood against many, and though they fell, their defiance resounded across the ages. At Salamis, the tide turned, and the dream of Greek liberty endured. Had Persia triumphed utterly, would Athens have flowered? Would philosophy, democracy, and art have arisen as they did? Thus, even in the ancient world, one sees Orwell’s truth: in the clash of empires, one side bore the seed of progress, the other sought to trample it.
The lesson is plain, my children of tomorrow: do not fall into the comfort of believing all struggles are meaningless, that all wars are but vanity. Some indeed are wicked on every side, but others are the very crucibles in which the fate of justice is forged. To withdraw, to shrug, to proclaim indifference in such times is to abandon the field to reaction. History itself implores us: when the future trembles in the balance, it matters who prevails.
Therefore, in your own lives, though you may not take up sword or rifle, you will face battles of principle. You will be asked to choose: between truth and falsehood, between courage and cowardice, between standing for the oppressed or turning away. Do not imagine that neutrality absolves you, for silence often strengthens the hand of reaction. Take up the cause of progress in word, in deed, in compassion. Speak truth when lies swarm like locusts. Defend the weak when power bears down like a storm. In this way, even your quiet life will echo the wisdom of Orwell.
Remember this teaching: progress is never guaranteed, reaction never sleeps. Each generation must choose anew, must fight anew, must stand anew. Let your heart be steadfast, and let your actions bear witness to the truth that it always matters who triumphs. Thus, the torch of freedom will not be extinguished, and the hard-won gains of our ancestors shall not fall to dust, but shall light the path for those yet unborn.
TKThu Kieu
What strikes me here is Orwell’s confidence that wars often have a moral imbalance. It’s a bold claim, especially today when ideological lines are blurred. Could it be that in his time, such distinctions were clearer? For instance, between fascism and democracy? Now, wars seem driven more by economics or geopolitics than ideals. I’d like to ask: in our current world, can we still meaningfully talk about wars as struggles between progress and reaction?
NNguyen
I find this quote both insightful and troubling. Orwell implies that wars are rarely morally equal, yet history is full of examples where both sides committed atrocities. Does progress in one dimension—like freedom or equality—justify devastation in another? Maybe Orwell was pointing to the necessity of discernment rather than blind allegiance. It leaves me wondering: is there ever a truly 'just' war, or are we only choosing between varying shades of wrong?
TDThuong Do
This quote challenges me to rethink neutrality. If one side genuinely represents progress and the other regression, then staying neutral might mean allowing reactionary forces to prevail. But who decides what 'progress' actually means? Each side believes in its own version of it. I’d like to hear a perspective on how we can objectively determine which side, if any, truly embodies progress without falling into propaganda or moral bias.
ABTuan Lan Anh Bui
Orwell’s statement makes me think about how moral judgment is often intertwined with political outcomes. Can we really say that one side always represents 'progress' and the other 'reaction'? It feels dangerous to simplify complex conflicts into good and bad sides. I wonder if Orwell’s observation was meant more as a reflection of his time, or if he believed this applied universally to all wars, even modern ones where motives are far less clear.