"The worst racket seems to be in second-hand goods."

First published in Tribune, 12 May 1944

Here are some current prices. Small Swiss-made alarm clock, price before the war, 5/- or 10/-: present price, £3 15s. Second-hand portable typewriter, price before the war, £12 new: present price, £30. Small, very bad quality coconut fibre scrubbing-brush, price before the war, 3d: present price 1/9d. Gas lighter, price before the war, about 1/-: present price, 5/9d.

I could quote other similar prices. It is worth noticing that, for instance, the clock mentioned above must have been manufactured before the war at the old price. But, on the whole, the worst racket seems to be in second-hand goods—for instance, chairs, tables, clothes, watches, prams, bicycles and bed linen. On inquiry, I find that there is now a law against overcharging on second-hand goods. This comforts me a great deal, just as it must comfort the 18b-ers to hear about Habeas Corpus, or Indian coolies to learn that all British subjects are equal before the law.

---

In Hooper’s Campaign of Sedan there is an account of the interview in which General de Wympffen tried to obtain the best possible terms for the defeated French army. ‘It is to your interest,’ he said, ‘from a political standpoint, to grant us honourable conditions…. A peace based on conditions which would flatter the amour-propre of the army would be durable, whereas rigorous measures would awaken bad passions, and, perhaps, bring on an endless war between France and Prussia.’

Here Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, chipped in, and his words are recorded from his memoirs:

I said to him that we might build on the gratitude of a prince, but certainly not on the gratitude of a people—least of all on the gratitude of the French. That in France neither institutions nor circumstances were enduring; that governments and dynasties were constantly changing, and one need not carry out what the other had bound itself to do . . . . As things stood it would be folly if we did not make full use of our success.

The modern cult of ‘realism’ is generally held to have started with Bismarck. That imbecile speech was considered magnificently ‘realistic’ then, and so it would be now. Yet what Wympffen said, though he was only trying to bargain for terms, was perfectly true. If the Germans had behaved with ordinary generosity (i.e. by the standards of the time) it might have been impossible to whip up the revanchiste spirit in France. What would Bismarck have said if he had been told that harsh terms now would mean a terrible defeat forty-eight years later? There is not much doubt of the answer: he would have said that the terms ought to have been harsher still. Such is ‘realism’—and on the same principle, when the medicine makes the patient sick, the doctor responds by doubling the dose.

---

This is an extract from George Orwell’s column in Tribune magazine. All rights reserved. This extract remains under copyright in the US and may not be distributed or reused in any way without permission from the Orwell Estate.