1984 Lore 👁️ Why Didn't Eurasia Conquer Britain? 

Because Eurasia has ALWAYS been our ally. We were ALWAYS at war with eastasia

Another point - Oceania is likely a greater naval power than Eurasia, as indicated by the name. The UK has traditionally been a naval power, and the US at the end of WWII had the world's largest navy. Oceania is spread out over multiple continents, unlike the other two powers, so Oceania's main military strength was most likely its navy.

My headcanon is Iceland is now called airstrip two and no one there knows why.

It makes sense that a “Operation Unthinkable” was tried in the 1984 universe, leading to the formation of the super states

My head cannon is that all the major powers actually have two militaries. One too sacrifice excesses man power and war material in the forever war, and another more elite force designed to defend there core territories should one of the other powers actually try to win.

The fact Colchester was nuked could imply there were also nuclear strikes against Eurasian cities like Minsk or Kyiv. The fact Britain is known as "Airstrip One" suggests it is used to store and launch large air assets that could have carried out these nuclear attacks. That may be why Britain is never invaded, immediately bombers and their escorts would take off and hit the nearby mainland (assuming that military technology has remained largely stagnant so intercontinental missiles aren't a thing). So Britain is a prime location to have deterrents on because of how close it is to Eurasia.

I think it is impossible for either of the three super states to invade each other’s main territory. Eurasia is massive, so oceanic forces would be spred thin not only that, but it’s terrain is not exactly easily to move around in since Europe has both extremely flat terrain were the enemy can be spotted easily and high mountains which makes it difficult to move a big army around and give the defenders a big advantage over any invading forces. Oceania on the other hand is protected by the vast ocean and one can assume that the Oceanian military has invested a lot in its navy and it is probably the most powerful navy of the three super states. Not only are all their military forces hyper inflated, but also their population and resources since all three superpowers are self sufficient, so there is also no economic incentive to invade the other’s territory. Is also worth mentioning that despite the so called different ideologies of Neo-Bolshevism, English socialism and obliteration of the self, all superpowers behave almost identically in their domestic affairs and one can say that in Eurasia they say they same thing along the lines of “we are at war with Oceania….we have always been at war with Oceania” and then “we are at war with eastasia…we have always been at war with eastasia” Also, let’s not forget that, the war is also a way in which the party controls the people, since the idea of an external enemy, always helps in maintaining the focus of the population away from internal struggle and more in fighting the alien. So since it’s established that Eurasia, Oceania and Eastasia behave the same way, explains why they agreed to only wage war along the equator in Africa and the Middle East which is the so called disputed territories, this also explains the fact that Eurasia and east Asia never seem to push each other’s borders despite sharing a massive land border but they rather fight each other over Iran or India. As well why Eastasia never attacks new Zealand or Australia which are areas that can also be easily isolated from the main Oceanic region.

Whenever you sign off with "Big Brother is watching you" I'm reminded of the SCTV (a late 70s-early 80s Canadian sketch comedy show) 1984 themed episode. They'd sign off with "Big Brother is watching you, thank you for watching Big Brother."

Invading a island is hard

I would love to see a video about the INGSOC revolution itself and the history of the party before it took power.

I wonder if the guy muttering about how they should never have trusted them was referring to the Soviet/Eurasian attack on Europe and North America or the U.S. absorption of the British Empire .

I misread the thumbnail as "No Eurovision?" in 1984 lol

It’s probably the most well defended place on the planet.

I think George Orwell perfectly predicted the cold war scenario. Even though mutually assured destruction was not an established concept by the time that he wrote the book, Orwell was very keen on understanding that a war between the superstates would mean total destruction of life and of course, the total destruction of political systems and these superstates were not gonna risk it all for very little.

Probably because it would break the informal agreement between the leadership of the three powers.

During WW2 the Soviets moved practically whole towns and industry further east to continue fighting the Germans. An amazing Herculean achievement.

I think eurasia did't invade becouse having the enemy so close can be used to keep the population at bay

This is my headcanon which assumes Oceania is just Britain : Oceania has nukes or the outside world is unsure if they do and it’s not worth the risk The Cold War between NATO/ Warsaw Pact is still going on and there’s just more pressing matters It likely has some Allies to help with food imports or *shudder* they have some sort of Soylent green situation going on As long as Oceania doesn’t make overtly aggressive moves against any of their neighbors , they’re content to let the house of cards collapse in on itself.

Actually Air Strip One was a kind of Oceanian North Korea : a much poorer and more perfectly totalitarian zone than both the rest of Oceania and nearby Eurasia. Invading such an impoverished and un self-sufficient territory would have entailed no benefits.

Amphibious operations are already a difficult undertaking. Imagine Eurasia being further restricted by a network of virtually unsinkable floating fortresses to further reinforce the stalemate

It bears considering that all the information Winston is exposed to - including Goldstein's book - is ultimately derived from the Party. We only have the Party's word for it that Eurasia even exists (though if it doesn't, it does make the Party's occasional declarations to have always been allied with Eastasia and at war with Eurasia or vice versa difficult to explain: it would just be making more work for itself). Nonetheless, the prescence of an adjacent, mostly-hostile superpower does suit the Party's purposes: rallying hatred against an external threat helps prevent Airstrip One from developing internal opposition. If Eurasia did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

My theory is that no superstate could hope to take on both of the other powers at once. The forces necessary to make significant gains against any other powee would leave that state vulnerable against an invasion by the remaining one. None of the powers trusts the others enough to create an alliance to destroy the third. The borders are as such that it would be difficult to see if the other power was doing equal fighting. Victory would eventually pit the two survivors against each other with a 50:50 baseline chance of either side winning. Those aren't good odds. The alternative is to maintain a stranglehold over their own people and skirmish with the other powers.

I didn't watch the entire video yet, but one theory is that Eurasia simply doesn't exist.

I believe that the most realistic scenario as to why Airstrip One was not invaded is due to the possibility that there never was a war in the first place. Realistically speaking, the superpowers within George Orwell's 1984 would likely never form to begin with, & even if they were formed, the cultural & ethnic backgrounds from all different regions & nations would make it near impossible to achieve near complete control of all of its citizens; We see an example of this with the proles within Airstrip one - They are largely left alone due to being an uneducated people in the party's eyes. I believe there are more layers as to why they are left alone though. As constantly noted throughout the novel, Oceania is an authoritarian surveillance state in which the party overlooks its citizens with its telescreens & use of the thought police, and while effective, it's just about impossible to impose on the entire (supposed) lands & citizens of Oceania.

I'm not an expert on military history, but one of the main reasons why Operation Sealion was never attempted was a lack of ships which could land troops (and a lack of crew for the boats they scrounged up, which included Rhine barges which had to be towed by other boats). The Luftwaffe would have been expected to fend off the Royal Navy and RAF remnants (if the Battle of Britain had been lost by the RAF, surviving fighter squadrons would have been moved north where the Nazis couldn't reach the airfields) and carry out massive bombing raids on London in an attempt to get people to flee the city to clog roads so reinforcements couldn't get to the invasion site while also compensating for the fact that transporting artillery and tanks across wasn't possible by filling the role artillery would usually serve. The Nazis only had 2 prototype landing barges available in '40 and building more would have meant being unable to replace planes which were being lost, so it's easy to see why the invasion never happened. Being as Eurasia could presumably deal with these issues by building landing barges, I think your theories about nukes, Airstrip One being heavily guarded and the idea that core territories wouldn't be invaded are more plausible reasons for Airstrip One not being taken over.

Floating Fortress.

Love this channel, awesome video

Oceania is so named because it's power comes from it's control of the oceans, so I imagine naval superiority in the Atlantic and English Channel is held by Oceania.

"Airstrip-1 wouldn't be conquered by Eurasia and likely never will." *Laughs in Ireland*✊🇮🇪

Could you do a video theorizing all about the Americas in 1984 like you touched on in this video? Such as how did the U.S and Latin America end up joining Oceania. A theory I like is that maybe the 1950s nuclear war was actually the last attempt at the U.S to stop Ingsoc

In my opinion, speaking of the War before 1955/1956 as between Oceania and Eurasia may not be completely accurate to the lore, although of course so much of the lore behind the geopolitics in 1984 has to be made up by the viewer as the novel purposefully leaves it ambiguous. In my head atleast, Oceania and Eurasia were formed as the product of War, they didn't exist when it started. It's very likely World War Three broke out somewhere in the early 1950s, which led to the atomic bombings of places like Colchester. The Soviet Army, a conventionally larger force than the US and NATO had at the time, took Europe in a few weeks and therefore formed Eurasia, after this Eurasia would begin to launch assaults into Africa where France and Britain still held colonial empires. In response to the outbreak of World War Three, the United States and United Kingdom merged into one State - Oceania - and also consolidated all the territory it could, such as South America - I do believe this one is actually directly mentioned in the book. Again, this would explain why Oceania holds the territory it does. It's very likely that the Party in Oceania took power during the periods of martial law and States of Emergency during the War, with a Civil War in Oceania breaking out likely from those who did not adhere to the Party. With that considered, the reason Eurasia didn't capture Britain is because they couldn't, the United States and United Kingdom had a far superior navy to that of the USSR, while the USSR had a superior land force that allowed them to take Europe. Eastasia probably formed from the People's Republic of China seizing Japan, Korea and French Indochina as World War Three kept the major powers occupied. Apart from World War Three, the conflict between the three is manufactured and only is waged to waste resources and allow artificial austerity to be continued, so that the respective governments of the three superpowers can keep their hold on power, so by the events of 1984 there would be no plan or attempts to invade or blockade Britain, because an end to the War and therefore the artificial austerity imposed by it would lead to the collapse of the social order and governments of those respective nations.

2:38 Eurasia did conquer Iceland though. So that's something at least.

Assuming that *Goldstein's* book is accurate it appears that the three competing powers are what are sometimes called civilization states. They're not the much less integrated coalitions of the real Cold War. Accepting this the decision not to conquer any part of the core territory of the three powers definitely makes sense for the reasons given in The Book.

I thought they were never at war with Eurasia.

Haven't seen the video yet, but the answer im going with on the title alone is that they couldn't. Do you understand just how enormously dominant the british and american navies are? Russia practically doesn't have a navy, france scuttled it in ww2, the kriegsmarine was beaten down in ww2, and the industrial capacity to make more ships in Oceania probably far exeeds that of Eurasia, not only because there several tomes larger than Eurasia, but because there essentially every significant naval power on earth rolled into one.

Hm i always kinda wonder with this of the leaders of the three nations live somewhere in the disputed zone with highly vetted security and they use the war as a cover so a small number can live in permanent luxury and safety whole the many suffer for them

Entirely possible that the three powers are actually just one. A global elite holding three different ideologies over the populace, ruling in triplicate, but united as one for the benefit of those said elite.

One thing to consider is the "Floating Fortress" which is mentioned in the book. It might be the thing keeping Airstrip One from being invaded, but there is also the fact that at a certain point in the book the war switches from Eurasia to East Asia, making us wonder if there was a war being fought at all. Why switch enemies and go about making sure everyone knows they're fighting East Asia instead of Eurasia? In any case invasions are easier to plan than they are to execute. When one considers the effort to just invade France during World War Two by the Allies, such things are not easy to pull off. Something else to be considered, the war itself might be a type of Cold War where proxies are fighting instead of nations which are doing just enough to give the illusion of a war being fought.

They realized there was no point. Before Winston's birth, No one in Europe ever traveled to England for a vacation, and later still had no desire to go there.

Will you consider making a discord, 1984 Lore?

I’d throw out the theory that all three governments agree solely to fight in the disputed zones, sending their soldiers to die in pointless battles without actually endangering their core territories. Simply wasting the excess goods that could be used to better the lives of the citizenry

What do you think of the recent Julia novel?

«Oceania have alway’s been at war with Eurasia»

I’d love to see a timeline of the backstory of 1984, although most of it would be speculative

Another suggestion for a video, picked up from someone mentioning this under your „Britain/Airstrip 1 is the whole of Oceania“ video: How does the military work in Oceania? There is no mention of conscription, not even among the proles as far as I'm aware of. Is the propaganda that effective so there are enough volunteers?

Honestly, I feel that it could be a mix of all the listed causes. Early on, efforts were made to try to weaken and invade the island, presumably in a similar manner to Germany and the issues it would have had with Sealion, but were thwarted by Oceania, or potentially the war escalated to limited nuclear war depleting both sides. By the time that Eurasia would be able to mount an operation in the area, a combination of M.A.D. and informal agreements/understandings between the parties to never severely threaten core territories. Thus they are able to keep a state of low intensity bombing and potentially some level of attempts to gain more power in the disputed territories while never seriously have any of their governments threatened by internal or external factors. These informal agreements seem likely to me, as it does explain how ministry buildings are seemingly never damaged yet other parts of the city are. It also explains why most fitting happens in the disputed territory instead of attempts to hit outlying core territories like air strip one.

To this day I still have no idea what was going on in 1984

Thoughts on rural areas in 1984? Off grid people etc.?

Could you do a video about Greenland and Iceland in this world? As I recall from the book, there is no information about them, but perhaps Orwell made some remarks in notes, letters, interviews and the like?

I think your essential theory is correct. Eurasia (whatever it is really like) has a vested interest in not invading Airstrip One. But I'll go one stop further--I don't think it wastes any resources attacking Airstrip One. The random bomb attacks are not the work of either Eurasia nor Eastasia, but rather Oceania itself, to help keep the the population under control. I suspect such attacks happen to a lesser or greater degree all over Oceania.

Given the pre-war American offshoots of Fascism it's not impossible to suggest an American invasion of Britain, that at the time would have suited the Third Reich, thereby absorbing the British Empire in an American Fascist orbit. Effectively turning Oceania into the worst visions of what an American Empire would look like.

1984 is probably just in the British isles and it is in a state like North Korea is and the while world just ignored the islands moving on

Just one point relating the Unthinkable: it wouldn't end up in Allied defeat as the Soviet Union had its manpower depleted way more than the West. Then, there's the discrepancy in power projection by the Navy and the Air Arm. It doesn't mean that it would be certain victory, or that it would make much sense in the first place - only that the Allied defeat wouldn't have been a likely outcome.

I am unsure operation unthinkable would have gone as badly as people say. Yes the Soviets had a manpower advantage but they were heavily dependent on the western allies for intellegence, food and general resources, especially steal. Every time the soviets lost a tank that's a tank basically unrepeatable if American steel isnt flowing freely.

Thanks!

My headcanon is that Latin American hasn't been fully conquered yet due to ridiculously strong partisan resistance behind the frontlines and a determined population beyond. What remains of the Free World is somewhere within the disputed areas around the Equator. They're fortunate enough to still be around because none of the superstates go all in on the offensive. Free France would be somewhere in West Africa, Free Italy in Libya, and the rest of Africa serving as a host for the governments-in-exile of various European nations. Maybe the British Raj still exists, albeit in a thoroughly Indianized version to host the British government-in-exile.

I personally think that Eurasia was so focused on invading North Africa and (possibly) the Middle East to assimilate them into their territory that they ended up either forgetting or ignoring the British Islands/Britain/Airstrip One Whatever resistance, probably earlier versions of Islamic Jihadists and Rebel Groups, and eventually Eastasia made them focus their attention on weeding them out and trying to take the islands would simply be a waste of time and resources as most were busy with the aforementioned enemies

Naval invasions are hard

I think the reason territory is never claimed is quite simple really. All three superpowers, if they even exist in the way Insoc describes them as, recognize the fact that the perpetual war is beneficial to them all, it keeps their citizens subjugated and angry, busy getting angry over an enemy that has so much in common with them, they have no real reason to be at war. Since we know Eurasia and Eastasia have virtually identical political systems to Oceania, what is there really to fight over? Wouldn’t it make more sense to leave each other alone, and to tell your citizens that you’re at war to keep them dumb and angry?

So what's the one thing that could tear down one party rule in the 3 states? Nuclear war. So there's nuclear detente which is based on not crossing certain red lines one of which is evidently the English Channel. Another is likely to be Australia which could at least theoretically be taken by Eastasia, though Oceania's holdings in the Americas and Southern Africa are less exposed. So the British Isles and Australia are red lines that are respected to preserve nuclear detente and one party rule in the 3 super states.

Ah yes the, "It looks better on a map, so why don't we just take them?" argument, that's not how conquests work.

A question: How can East Asia fire rocket bombs on London? Sometimes it's said that Oceania is at war with East Asia - do the rocket bombs stop then?

The secret is in the name Airstrip One. Britain during WW2 was the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the US. Literally. There are old airbases dotted around the South East of England, dating back to WW2. There are even some major bases in England still operated by the US today. Who is going to attack an unsinkable aircraft carrier, an enormous friendly territory separated from mainland Europe by over 20 miles of inhospitable sea (that happens incidentally to have the highest density of shipping in the world)? From the name Airstrip One, can one imagine that Britain in '1984' has closed all those airbases, no longer has a strategic use for them, would never attempt to use them in its own defence, would not be able to use them to launch nuclear bombers? And back in WW2 days, Britain, with its coastline over 2,000 miles long, and some major ports and rivers suited to shipbuilding, was producing a lot of the world's ships. Not so today, but it was back then.

The channel is not an insurmountable barrier. It can be crossed by whichever side can deploy a preponderence of force to the attempt. We know this for a fact because it happened in our world on D-Day. Therefore Eurasia must lack the necessary preponderence of force, as the Germans did in our world. However this is strange because Nazi Germany lasted barey a deacde while Eurasia the 1984 geopolitical map has lasted for hundreds of years. Since the east bank of the channel has access to far more resources than the west bank, you'd expect that at some point in these centuries the needed preponderence of force would have been achieved by Eurasia.

The interesting thing is, Spain and Portugal would be the most likely foothold to gain on Europe for Oceannia. They already have large populations of Spanish and Portuguese speaking populations. That gets around a major aspect of integrating a couple of countries based on language and broad cultural elements. They could have tried to stop the Eurasian advance at the Pyrenees. Of course holding it would be a problem. However, it would be interesting to hear about the Oceanic conquest of Central and South America and how well those regions are integrated.

The same reason Eastasia didn't invade Eurasia, or visa versa, presumably

Operation Unthinkable was a lot more feasible than this video gives it credit for. The Soviets depended heavily on America for food and (strange as it sounds given Soviet oil reserves) aviation fuel. Soviet (and German) aviation gasoline was very low-octane and low-quality; while American avgas was high octane. Without that American aid, and while remaining at war, the Soviets could not have simultaneously fueled their war machine, fueled their tractors, produced fertilizer, and manned their farms. They'd have run out of fuel like the Axis, or starved.

Eurasia might not be a major naval power, if you look at it's land mass it has countless borders on land and all it's biggest likely rival nearest to it Eastasia would also be a large land power that did dapple in some naval power too. So likely just like what historical Russia did, Eurasia likely focused firstly on Land and airpower and then just enough naval forces to deter or counter any naval invasions to it's own shores. I would dare say most of Eurasia's assets are more directed towards conflicts with Eastasia their more direct enemy. I think Eurasia could take Britain: due to their sheer bulk ability of projecting so power from so many areas on one isolated target, add in the short distance between Eurasia and Britain and how long it would take any concentrated relief forces from the American part of Oceania would take to build up and then sail, but the retaliation and then holding it once the likely much larger and superior Oceania fleet arrives makes such a action not long term viable. In fact Oceania is in a very interesting position in this world, most of it's core is out of range or reach any real major strongholds of the other factions (Alaska is not the best place to support or launch an overwhelming sized invasion if your coming from Siberia Russia) well land invasion forces at least; nuclear missiles not counted. Sine Oceania is a combination of post WW2 America and Britain both who where the two dominate naval powers of WW2, likely both navies where merged later on and likely the tradition of having the strongest navy was kept, it would make sense with the Land mass controlled by Oceania as well. Add in the Nuclear threat of MAD if you invaded Britain/ Airstrip One.

Why would we want to invade a wet island where the sky is always gray, it constantly rains and the food is repulsive? Not worth the effort.

If Oceania wanted to invade Eurasia, the best place to do it would be Iberia. Oceania's Central and South America provinces are part of the same cultural sphere as Spain and Portugal in terms of Goldstein's theory of cultural integrity. Btw, I am not sure INGSOC in North America looks the way it does in Airstrip One. I think there are variants and in the US there's a kind of alliance between the Unions, the old military industrial complex, and the political class. These are the Inner Party in North America and they even include former CIA officials. I think also there vastly more free enterprise in North America. Latin America probably got the really screwed up INGSOC version (as bad as in Airstrip One) and Australia something in between the Airstrip One and the US variants. According to my theory, there was no 1917 style revolution in North America. What really happened is the MIC and the deep state saw they were losing the ideological struggle with Eurasia in the era of 1950s decolonization. Eurasia was also dabbling in fomenting a black uprising that risked sparking a new American civil war. And workers strikes were spreading fast in Pennsylvania, the South, Chicago. With the crisis in Europe after Kolchester, the CIA and industry brought in someone like Jimmy Hoffa to set up a ruling government of unity that would bring together everyone under one banner with INGSOC as the most obvious solution. They adopted INGSOC as a manoeuvre in this ideological battle to keep control of non-Anglo territories in South America and Africa and to maintain social cohesiveness within the US itself. In their minds, INGSOC was the moderate option, a way to preserve social peace at home and project geopolitical power abroad. All that really happened in the US was that private capitalism became state capitalism where instead of owning just industry, the elites seized control of the entire Republic. Big Brother is British and he is the dictator of Airstrip One, South Africa, and Australia but in the Americas, BB has no real power whatsoever. The British Isles underwent North Koreanization due to the nuclear war which gave ideological fanatics like Big Brother and Goldstein a headstart. They're the Khmer Rouge version of INGSOC, but in the US, it's more like Tito's far tamer version of Communism.

Given that for years now India and China have been fighting a war in the Himalayas (a war Google has no problem removing any mention of, which is of course double plus good) where both sides have agreed to use no firearms, I find it quite plausible that the three super-states could tacitly agree on what lands they will fight over and what lands they will just hit with missiles.

9:14 wasn’t that Patton’s idea?

What were the circumstances of Eastasia's creation? It would likely have to involve the expulsion of American/Oceanian soldiers from Japan.

I wonder if Oceania would even attempt to defend the isles? I mean they renamed it airstrip one probably to remjve any English nationalism but its a very military name. If they where to loose it to the eurasian threat it would peobably be treated the same as the loss of a forward base in disputed territory. They dont exactly have any other choice. I guess there is always the possability that airstrip one could be anywhere since we inly have winstons word that its old london but i dont think theres reason to disbelieve him there

At 02:30, why is Vladimir Putin touring London?

What do you think about the critic that hakim did in the video george orwell was an horrible person

A invasion of airstrip 1 wouldn’t be as easy as the book says let alone being easy at all but Eurasia if focus on becoming better in navy then Oceania or have a better airforce would potentially do a successful takeover of the British isles and of course it wouldn’t be in a superstate best interests to conquer core territory of another superstate giving the stable structure of both superstates and invasions of core land would lead to revolutions might start in superstates if given a opportunity as it seems like There plenty of adults that would want to start a revolution or coup but they won’t try as a attempt would be futile and many probably been tortured already so a successful revolution would be out of the question but what isn’t out of the question is how much attempts does Eurasia need to do to take over the British isles probably about to 4-14 times given the navy of Oceania being stronger and probably bigger while Eurasia airforce might be bigger but isn’t definitely bigger as soon as the sparks of civil war start revolutions probably would start then but there isn’t any point of revolution in the superstates for now and in the future

Having a "vile Enemy" just across the "Airstrip 1 Channel" (formerly "English Channel") ~ whether a real danger or contrived perception, served another purpose I've not seen in comments. Who is going to "flee" from Airstrip 1 to "Eurasia" if brainwashed to believe deadly enemies are waiting to kill them? Thus "internal Security" costs didn't need a Border Patrol focusing on outlaw emigrants (it had other priorities). 😮😂

🔥🎸🔥

The British navy strikes again

Real reason writer's bias of course the British Isles is invincible in a British novel.

404 likes, conquest of Airstrip One, not found

My idea is that Air Strip One is all of Oceania. AS1 is like our world North Korea. The same reason no one invades NK, too messy & not worth it. The rest of the world probably exists like normal but nobody in AS1 really knows the same as NK residents.

How would the 1984 world survive with climate change and the depletion of fossil fuels? That would surely change the status quo

9:46 completely off topic, but an allied invasion of the USSR if it actually went through and was followed through, actually had a pretty good chance of succeeding. what people forget is that most of the eastern USSR slavic peoples REALLY did not like the soviets. even before communism russia had been brutal in repressing independence movements in these areas of eastern europe for literal centuries, and needless to say communism made this even worse. the only reason such countries as ukraine, bulgaria, kazakhstan and more didn't end up rebelling so harshly in the second world was that it ended up that the nazis were somehow even more brutal to slavic peoples they saw as undesirables. there is a reason that when the USSR fell basically every country that could broke off immediately from the central government so project unthinkable would have a rough start but once rebellion movements got started, the soviets would have to divert resources to quell the rebellions, which would give the allies more breathing room and ability to push further, which would embolden the rebel states even further. i doubt the allies would be able to push to say, moscow or anything, but they easily could neuter soviet control in eastern europe

Eurasia is not a thing, oceania is not a thing. In fact even airstrip one isn't a thing, the entire ingsoc regime contains only what IRL is a narrow strip of countryside to a shore ;)

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvccccccccccccccccccffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

I'm gonna comment so that no one can say "first" muwahahahahaaaaa

Doggerland

Ask Hitler...

Possibly because Eurasia doesn't exist

Its because its britan

6:12 AI image detected Extreme disappointment

The riches of the US after WW2 were out of exploitation of rebuilding Europe. In the 1984 universe, Eurasia would have that responsibility of rebuilding Europe.

The same reason the ussr never tried to invade Britain during the 50s. Britain was under American occupation and still is today.