Geopolitical Viability of Orwell’s 1984 Megastates

[DominusNovus]

No idea which subforum would be best for this discussion, so Post-1900 will have to do unless a mod disagrees. This is solely a kind of tabula rasa scenario, not based on the book itself.

I’ve looked at many of the maps conjecturing on what the world of 1984 looks like, and I’ve wonder how states with those (or similar) borders would do.

There is, of course, plenty of intentional ambiguity about the borders in the book, but I find the notion of such a tripolar world quite fascinating. For the sake of this discussion, these do not have to be dystopian states, locked in an eternal semi-phony war, they do not have to be fascist autocracies. This is solely about their borders and the viability of these countries based on their geography, resources, and population. Lets set the cultural and ethnic concerns aside for the moment.

• The first thought I have is that Oceania has the best set up. Even if you subtracted the southern half of Africa, they’d still be set quite nicely. They have no real borders, and their industrial and population core has an ocean between them and any rivals on either side. They also have massive resources, lots of oil, lots of farm land. This is basically indistinguishable from your generic Ameriwank map. Not overwhelming in population, but otherwise, unparalleled. In a real war, could probably take on both other superpowers, unless they united.
• Eastasia is effectively one of those maps where a circle is drawn around India and China to show where half the world’s population lives. Sheer manpower sets them up quite nicely. The Himalayas prove to be a serious hindrance to their infrastructure, and they don’t have a great resource base to draw from for their country - not a lot of oil.
• Eurasia has all of Siberia as a buffer between them and Eastasia, so that is nice, to keep the European industrial base safe. Too bad for them Great Britain is a giant aircraft carrier. They also have plenty of raw materials in Russia, so their oil situation isn’t too bad.
• How nobody has consolidated a hold on the Middle East oil is a head scratcher. Even from the Orwellian idea of a balance to maintain an eternal war, Eastasia is hamstrung without it.

 

[overoceans]

Based on the real-world postwar aftermath, I think it likely that most of western Europe would be part of Oceania, not Eurasia. Granted, at the time of writing, Orwell might have had reason to think that Stalin would eventually move westward.

 

[Ulyanovsk]

Oceania has a great set up, but also extending state control over many regions of South America and Southern Africa would be... difficult. Now this gets into the politics of such a state, but at least if we look at what state building has been like historically in these regions, it's probably fair to assume that Oceania controls a lot of the urban areas and vital regions, but Im sure there'd be vast swathes of land with little to no state apparatus and a lot of the population outside of effective state control simply due to geography and the difficulties of building a state under those conditions with that technology.

 

[marathag]

How nobody has consolidated a hold on the Middle East oil is a head scratcher. Even from the Orwellian idea of a balance to maintain an eternal war, Eastasia is hamstrung without it.

At the time he wrote it, M.E. Gulf oil was still relatively unimportant, growing over 250% since 1939, from almost no production. Even Iran and Iraq were minor players.
He didn't realize it was just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[interpoltomo]

why does east asia have northern india?

 

[overoceans]

Also, how does Brit-centric Oceania manage to get ahold of Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar, and most of the Belgian Congo, while losing almost all of present-day Kenya?

 

[DominusNovus]

At the time he wrote it, M.E. Gulf oil was still relatively unimportant, growing over 250% since 1939, from almost no production. Even Iran and Iraq were minor players.
He didn't realize it was just the tip of the iceberg.

Correct. I am, however, discussing these from a out-of-context perspective. In other words, setting aside Orwell's own vision and just looking at the map.

why does east asia have northern india?

You'd have to ask Orwell. Some maps have them ruling India, some don't. Personally, I think it is more likely than anyone else doing so, so I picked a map that includes more of India in Easasia.

Also, how does Brit-centric Oceania manage to get ahold of Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar, and most of the Belgian Congo, while losing almost all of present-day Kenya?

Presumably by moving north from South Africa as far as they could reliably secure territory. Since Kenya is disputed, it could simply be that Oceania has a general control of the region, but the border is not secure. Honestly, Africa is one of the places where the borders make the least sense to me. But, again, all of the borders are just rough approximations, anyway.

 

[Calaritanus]

This sure looks like a quadripolar or quintipolar world: a surviving or re-united Caliphate--along, possibly, with a rump France-in-exile in Africa--squeezed between a pan-European alliance (some kind of super-EU? a USSR that conquered to the Atlantic? Yes, it controls much of Asia, but Siberia is controlled from Europe), an Anglosphere-dominated Alliance of Democracies (or some such), and what might be a Marxist, ex-colonialized alliance of India and China.

All, I am sure, completely unviable except as unwieldy and fractious power-blocs, but with fewer straight lines and some adjustments for plausibility, at least a description of what seems to be going on.

 

[BlackDragon98]

• How nobody has consolidated a hold on the Middle East oil is a head scratcher. Even from the Orwellian idea of a balance to maintain an eternal war, Eastasia is hamstrung without it.

Maybe it's precisely because of the war that nobody has taken the Middle East and North Africa?
Everyone wants the oil of the MidEast and NA and thus, no one holds it permanently because everytime someone tries, they are driven out by enemy forces.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Not overwhelming in population, but otherwise, unparalleled. In a real war, could probably take on both other superpowers, unless they united.

Population-wise, I think you're underestimating them; the Americas alone account for around a billion people right now IOTL, plus there's probably a few hundred million more in Africa (plus Britain/Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, which add another hundred million or so between them). That would put them a fair ways ahead of Eurasia, in addition to having quite a lot of industry. They'd be behind Eastasia, of course, but who wouldn't be...

Eastasia is effectively one of those maps where a circle is drawn around India and China to show where half the world’s population lives. Sheer manpower sets them up quite nicely. The Himalayas prove to be a serious hindrance to their infrastructure, and they don’t have a great resource base to draw from for their country - not a lot of oil.

What Eastasia needs to do in this respect is secure Southeast Asia and Indonesia (I assume this would be easier than conquering the Middle East, since they would only have to contest with Oceania). That would get them plenty of oil, and honestly it would be a nice symmetry with Eurasia controlling all of mainland Europe and Britain being the Oceanian outpost there--here, replace "Britain" with "Australia and New Guinea" and you end up in more or less the same place.

I imagine that they would also be very interested in synthetic fuel (they do have an awful lot of coal), nuclear power, and probably restricting civilian usage of oil through high investment in transit, promoting bicycles, and the like. That would help a lot.