with Eurasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Well, that's a good trick, but it seems that Orwell's Oceania is managing an even better one : As far as I can tell from 1984, it is always Oceania that switches its alliance. You would think that once in a while, it would suit Eastasia and Eurasia to gang up on the pesky Ingsoc types. Do any of you read the book differently, or have a good explanation for why Oceania should always be able to be the betrayer?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Because Eurasia and Eastasia were nothing more than useful plot devices?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
if they get weapons of mass destruction we're all doomed
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Eurasia? Eastasia? It changes every day
. . .
Flip-flop! Flip-flop!
--j_k
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Part of the point of the whole "We were always at war with Eastasia/Eurasia" thing was to illustrate how the people in charge of these societies don't care about anything other than power. Oceania isn't fighting a war to win or to redress a wrong or for any other purpose other than to be fighting a war for the effects that it has on their own population. The same is true for the other two societies. It may not be true that they've always been at war with each other, but they always will be at war in the future.
For their purposes, the only bad thing about the war would be if it ended, either with them winning or losing. So, it's possible they switch sides in order to maintain the balance of powers. But they could also switch sides (and they all do it from time to time, it doesn't matter at all which society's soldiers are getting killed to them) for any reason, up to and including, I just feel like it.
It's like race-baiting or it's current version of partisan-baiting. They don't actually care about the issues that they are getting the people they are oppresssing to fight about. It is only important that their subjects fight and hate each other, so that the people in charge don't have to worry about their people actually being concerned about how they are getting screwed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But you are forgetting the power of doublethink. The people in power do not care about winning the war, this is true. But it is also true that they care passionately and absolutely, with a strength of feeling usually reserved for sex. Now, suppose Oceania is allied to Eastasia. Surely there must be some circumstances in which it is advantageous for Eastasia to stab their ally and grab some part of Africa, with or without the help of Eurasia? Of course, since the war is not that central to the book, it could be that Orwell just didn't think it through. On the other hand, perhaps the geographical location of Oceania means that it has to be the one to switch? It's a minor detail, but it bothers me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
King, No see, they don't want Africa. They don't care about Africa. Well, ok you're right about the doublethink and they do care while not caring, but if someone came up with a way of winning all of Africa and the war itself, the people in charge would kill that person and destroy his ideas. The war must always go on. It is irrelevant who they are fighting against, as long as they are fighting.