Euphemization and the falsification of the past as interrelated mechanisms of historical memory control: George Orwell's novel 1984 in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war

Abstract

Background. The Russian-Ukrainian War, which has continued since 2014 and entered its full-scale phase on 24 February 2022, has been accompanied by information and cognitive influence aimed at justifying aggression, constructing an image of the enemy, distorting historical information, and restricting access to alternative accounts. In George Orwell's novel 1984, similar mechanisms are illustrated through the euphemistic naming of state activities, the systematic alteration of documents, and the coercive subordination of personal memory. The article aims to identify the forms and functions of these mechanisms in the novel and to compare them with Russia's information operations supporting its war against Ukraine. The study is based on the Ukrainian translation of 1984 by Olena Oksenych, published in 2023.
Methods. Textual analysis was applied to identify the means of euphemization, the alteration of documentary information, and the subordination of memory; discourse analysis was used to determine the functions of official names, historical claims, and recurrent expressions; and the comparative-functional method was employed to compare the fictional model of Oceania with the mechanisms of Russian information influence.
Results. The analysis established that euphemization encompasses the names of state institutions, war, forced labour, and repressive procedures. The terms "Minipax", "joycamp", "Minitrue", and "VAPORIZATION" conceal the actual content of the actions they denote, while the reduction of the Newspeak vocabulary restricts the possibilities for critically interpreting official messages. The falsification of the past is implemented through the alteration of newspaper reports and statistical data, the destruction of original documents, the creation of fabricated biographies, and the rewriting of the history of Oceania's military alliances. Control over documentary records is supplemented by the coercive destruction of Winston's trust in his own memories. Functional equivalents of these mechanisms are identified in the euphemistic designation of Russian aggression as a "special military operation", the use of historical revisionism, the construction of Ukraine as an enemy, and the restriction of access to independent sources of information.
Conclusions. Euphemization, the falsification of documentary information, and the subordination of personal memory form a consistent system of control over historical memory in the novel. The practical value of the findings lies in their potential application in military journalism for verifying official terminology, comparing different versions of reports, preserving primary materials, and distinguishing facts from their military-political interpretations. In strategic communications, the identified features may be used to detect contemporary Russian propaganda narratives, assess the historical arguments advanced by the aggressor state, and prepare evidence-based refutations.